Appeal No. 2007-0204
Application 10/938,966
"slice encoding and rewinding gradients" have been reduced. Based on our
reading of the specification, S3 and S4 are the only "slice encoding and
rewinding gradients" and they are completely disabled, not diminished.
Therefore, if "reduce" is defined to mean diminishing the gradients, but not
completely eliminating them, there is no written description support. Since
claim 44 recites "disable slice encoding and rewinder gradients," it is clear
that Appellant could have recited "disable" instead of "reduced" if this is what
was intended.
The third question is whether the claims are properly rejected under
§ 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description if the definition of
"reduced" includes "turning off, or disabling." We find that the claims are
properly rejected because the specification does not show that Appellant
possessed the full scope of the "reduced" limitation. See LizardTech, Inc. v.
Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 76 USPQ2d 1724 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (patent failed to demonstrate that patentee possessed the full scope of
the invention). The specification only supports "turning off, or disabling" the
slice encoding and rewinder gradients, not just diminishing them. Thus, even
if "reduced" includes "turning off, or disabling" the gradients, the rejection is
proper. It is noted that similar reasoning can be applied to the limitation of
"increasing slice encoding and rewinder gradients" in claim 51, because
"increase" means to make greater, which implies that the gradients must not
be at zero.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013