Appeal 2007-1414
Application 10/453,559
Meron US 2002/0171669 Nov. 21, 2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-18, 20-23, and 58-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 16, 17, 20-23, 53-69, 71-80, and 82-86 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Meron. Claims 3,
18, 70, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Meron in view of Turek and in view of Rothschild.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 29, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Sep. 5,
2006) and Reply Brief (filed Feb. 1, 2007) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The test for determining compliance with the written description
requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that
time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence
of literal support in the specification for the claim language. See Vas-Cath,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013