Appeal No. 96-2518
Application No. 08/040,053
for a display which displays results of the evaluation first
“coarsely” and then in a more “detailed” manner.
Appellant admits that these particular words were not
used in the original disclosure. However, in order to
determine compliance with the written description portion of
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a proper inquiry
pertains to whether the disclosure (i.e., the specification,
claims and drawings as originally filed) reasonably conveys to
the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of
that which is now claimed. Literal support in the disclosure
for the terms of the claims challenged by the examiner is not
necessary in order to show such possession. In re Wright, 866
F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
While the original disclosure here did not use the terms
“coarse” and “detailed,” it is clear from the specification,
at page 9, bottom of the page, that appellant had possession
of the invention now claimed since there is a reference to
“precisely” locating the error “to have a closer look.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007