Appeal No. 1996-3167 Page 11
Application No. 07/974,834
material." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90,
96 (CCPA 1976). In order to meet the written description
requirement, the appellants do not have to utilize any
particular form of disclosure to describe the subject matter
claimed, but "the description must clearly allow persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she]
invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008,
1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way,
"the applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to
those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
he or she was in possession of the invention." Vas-Cath, Inc.
v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Finally, "[p]recisely how close the
original description must come to comply with the description
requirement of section 112 must be determined on a
case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039,
34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935
F.2d at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116).
With this as background, we have reviewed both (1) the
specific rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007