Appeal No. 97-0124
Application No. 08/273,672
support” has also been held to imply a reliance on the written
description requirement of the statute. In re Higbee and Jasper,
527 F.2d 1405, 188 USPQ 488, 489 (CCPA 1976).
In view of the factual situation presented to us in this
instance, we will interpret the Examiner’s basis for the 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection as reliance on the
“written description” portion of the statute. “The function of
the description requirement [of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112] is to ensure that the inventor has possession, as of the
filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject
matter later claimed by him.” In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257,
262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). "It is not necessary that the
application describe the claim limitations exactly, . . . but
only so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art will
recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented processes
including those limitations." Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191
USPQ at 96 citing In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ
279, 284 (CCPA 1973). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points
out that "[i]t is not necessary that the claimed subject matter
be described identically, but the disclosure originally filed
must convey to those skilled in the art that applicant had
invented the subject matter later claimed." In re Wilder,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007