Appeal No. 95-4462
Application 08/190,950
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted):
[t]he test for determining compliance with the
written description requirement [found in the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112] 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. The content of the drawings may
also be considered in determining compliance with
the written description requirement.
The requirement that the diameter of the periphery of the
contacting wall is “at least twice” the diameter of the
aperture in the wall encompasses a range of ratios which
includes the ratio 2 as a lower limit, and which has no upper
limit. There is no support in the original disclosure for the
diameter of the periphery of the contacting wall 32 being
twice the diameter of the aperture 26, as now covered by claim
1. Likewise, there is no support in the original disclosure
for the diameter of the periphery of the contacting wall 26
being any diameter greater than twice the diameter of the
aperture 26, as also now covered
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007