Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 10
Application No. 08/810,442
III. Written Description Rejection of Claim 10
The examiner asserts, “[c]laim 10, moreover, deals with
subject matter which was not described in the specification in
such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant
art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention.” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.)
The appellant argues, “the only ports of entry for keys PK and SK
are busses 55 and 56 in Figure 8 of the Specification. However,
these keys must be entered in encrypted form onto these busses.
If a non-encrypted key is entered, then gibberish will be
delivered by the computation means.” (Appeal Br. at 24-25.)
“Whether the description requirement is met is a question of
fact. . . .” Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc. 772 F.2d
1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re
Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
"’Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the
subject matter claimed, . . . the description must clearly allow
persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or
she] invented what is claimed.’" Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting
In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007