Appeal No. 1998-2046
Application No. 08/787,332
The Examiner maintains the subject matter of claim 1 was
not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
inventors, at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the
Examiner states, "[T]he thickness criteria is not supported in
the specification.” (Brief-pages 3 and 4.)
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure in this application does comply with
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Initially we note that the Examiner’s reasoning for lack
of “support” for the claimed invention herein, implicitly
refers to the written description portion of this statutory
provision. In re Higbee, 527 F.2d 1405, 1406, 188 USPQ 488,
489 (CCPA 1976). The purpose of the written description
requirement is to ensure that the applicants convey with
reasonable clarity, to those skilled in the art, that they
were in possession of the invention as of the filing date of
the application. For the purposes of the written description
requirement, the invention is "whatever is now claimed." Vas-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007