Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
Specification are to exclude fish and other animals that live exclusively
underneath the water. However, we interpret the phrase “aquatic animals”
more broadly to include aquatic living animals, such as aquatic birds (e.g.,
ducks) that live in aquatic habitats. There is no description in the
Specification that aquatic birds be excluded from the pool, or of a structure
that would shield the pool from aquatic birds flying in and landing on it.
The written description must be of sufficient detail to show possession of the
full scope of the invention. Pandrol USA LP v. Airboss Railway Products
Inc., 424 F.3d 1161, 1165, 76 USPQ2d 1524, 1527 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that there is no detailed description to show that
Appellant possessed the invention which is now claimed. We affirm the
rejection of claims 8 and 44. Claims 9-29 fall with claims 8 and 44 because
they were not separately argued.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
lbg
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
ONE SOUTH CHURCH AVENUE, SUITE 1700
TUCSON AZ 85701-1621
19
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Last modified: September 9, 2013