Appeal No. 1999-2403
Application 08/576,185
which amendment also added two paragraphs to page 10 of the
specification as filed. Claims 14 and 18-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kushima.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections of the claims on appeal and
introduce our own new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
14 and 18-21 in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.196(b).
We turn first to the rejection of claims 18-21 under the
written description portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
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). It is
permissible to add inherent properties or characteristics of the
invention to the disclosure and claims. Kennecott Corp. V.
Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1422, 5 USPQ2d 1194, 1197
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1008 (1988). An
invention claimed need not be described in ipsis verbis in order
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007