Appeal No. 96-1678
Application 08/322,731
required by the second paragraph of section 112.
[emphasis added]
This is precisely the case here, in our view.
Claims 19, 21 and 26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure that fails
to comply with the description requirements of this section of
the statute.
The test for determining compliance with the 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. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The content of
the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement. Id. Because the
disclosure as originally filed does not disclose mounting the
sealing elements 18 for displacement transverse to the axis of
the wound roll 6, wherein said transverse displacement is
conditioned upon the heads being lowered toward the upper wedge-
shaped gap between the support cylinders 2, 3, the limitation
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007