Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him;
how the specification accomplishes this is not 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." Vasilkov-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)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007