Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 6
Application No. 08/089,810
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, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d
1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In applying the above-noted test, we conclude that the
language at issue (i.e., "introducing transporting gas only
through one side wall opposite to the partition wall in the first
chamber") is supported by the original disclosure. In that
regard, Figure 5 shows that the only transporting gas introduced
in the first chamber (i.e., lower part 318 of return duct 312) is
introduced by nozzle 324 through the side wall opposite to the
partition wall 322 in the first chamber. Additionally, the
specification (page 14) states that
[t]ransportation gas is introduced through nozzle 324 into
the lower part of the return duct 312 for transporting
particles through passages 320 into the heat exchanger
chamber 314.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007