Appeal No. 1998-2046
Application No. 08/787,332
cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The manner in which the specification as filed meets the
written description requirement is not material. The
requirement may be met by either an express or an implicit
disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90,
96 (CCPA 1976). An invention claimed need not be described in
ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169
USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The question is not whether an
added word was the word used in the specification as filed,
but whether there is support in the specification for the
employment of the word in the claims, that is, whether the
concept is present in the original disclosure. See In re
Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ 331, 336 (CCPA 1973).
In the instant case the Examiner finds no support in the
specification for the claim language:
a thickness of said insulating layer at a region
surrounding said hole from the upper surface of the
insulating layer to the surface of the second
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007