Appeal No. 1998-0256
Application No. 08/395,768
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determination
which follows.
We sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims on
appeal for the reasons articulated, infra.
As our review Court stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983):
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 claim subject
matter, rather than the presence or absence of
literal support in the specification for the claimed
language. The content of the drawings may also be
considered in determining compliance with the
written description requirement. (citations
omitted)
Of course, a claimed invention does not necessarily have to be
expressed in ipsis verbus in order to satisfy the description
requirement. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265, 191 USPQ
90, 98 (CCPA 1976)). However, it must also be kept in mind
that the fact one skilled in the art might realize from
reading a disclosure that something is possible is not a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007