Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
The description issue
The rejection of claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is sustained, but not the rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 12 to 15, 21, 23, 25 to 29 and 37.
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.
Further, the content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The following items were determined by the examiner as not
being supported by the originally filed disclosure: (1)"said
recesses have various predetermined shapes identifying
corresponding control means" as recited in claim 22; (2) "each
said at least one open at one side recess contains more than one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007