Appeal No. 2002-0421
Application No. 09/264,294
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph issue
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 5.
As our reviewing 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 claimed 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)
The fact one skilled in the art might realize from reading a
disclosure that something is possible is not a sufficient
indication to that person that the something is a part of an
appellant's disclosure. See In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007