Mixed result in Ex parte Taylor

Ex parte Taylor

Of a rejection for lack of written description, the appellant prevailed:

We agree with Appellants. The phrase “substantially rigid” is somewhat broader than the unmodified “rigid” but it shows possession of a rigid fastener assembly to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”). We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

The overall outcome:

We reverse the rejection of claims 23, 24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description. We affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 9, 12-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Parodi. We reverse the rejection of claims 21, 22, 25, and 26 as anticipated by Parodi.
We affirm the rejection of claims 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Parodi, the rejection of claims 8, 10, 11, 18, and 19 as obvious based on Parodi and Stein, and the rejection of claims 5-7 and 17 as obvious based on Parodi, Bolduc, and Hooven.