Appeal No. 97-2734
Application 08/394,067
Cir. 1993); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64,
19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In this particular instance, after considering
appellants' disclosure as a whole and recognizing that the
claimed subject matter does not need to be described in haec
verba in the specification in order for the specification to
satisfy the written description requirement, it is our opinion
that the originally filed specification provides clear support
for the invention as now claimed. We are in substantial
agreement with appellants' argument, found on page 7 of the
brief, that the recitation in claims 1, 10 and 11 relating to
the "dynamic support" limitation and the "means for
dynamically supporting" of claim 4, each find support in the
originally filed specification and drawings of the
application. As can be readily perceived from appellants'
specification at pages 1, 2, 5 and 7, among others, the
handgrip of the crutch therein is expressly disclosed as being
movably mounted in a vertical direction and to include spring
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007