Appeal No. 1997-1219
Application 08/432,649
of aqueous dispersion solids" as referring to acrylic polymer
particles, per se, whereas the examiner interprets this
disclosure as referring to the acrylic polymer particles in
combination with the water in which they are contained.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement 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).
In applying this test to the case at bar, we are led to
the determination that the "90/10" ratio of appealed claim 7
does not comply with the written description requirement set
forth in the first paragraph of § 112. In the first place,
the examiner's interpretation of the above quoted disclosure,
which leads to a conclusion that his § 112 rejection is
proper, is a reasonable interpretation on the record before
us. Certainly, the appellants have proffered no evidence that
the specification disclosure in controversy would have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007