Appeal No. 1999-1321
Application No. 08/625,495
The specification discloses that the claimed compositions have insecticidal
activity against lice but do not cause burning or reddening of the skin. See pages
5-9.
Discussion
1. The written description rejection
The examiner rejected all of the claims as unsupported by an adequate
written description. The examiner states that “[w]hile specific ranges of
ingredients are recited at page 6 and other ranges are exemplified in the tables
and examples, basis for the broadening of these recitations to encompass ‘about’
these amounts is not found in the as filed specification. . . . There is no indication
in the as filed specification tha[t] Appellants intended the stated ranges to be
approximate and to what extent.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4.
The examiner’s position, as we understand it, is that the specification
supports the percentage ranges recited in the claims, but does not support
adding the modifier “about” to the endpoints of the ranges. We decline to apply
the written description requirement so strictly.
“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as
originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed
subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320,
1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the disclosure
must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor
was in possession of the invention. See id. “It is not necessary that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007