Appeal No. 2002-0978
Application 09/535,065
detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the
inventor invented the claimed invention.” Id. citing Lockwood v.
American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961,
1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10
USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he description must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize
that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an
applicant complies with the written description requirement “by
describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not
that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive
means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc.,
that set forth the claimed invention.” Id. citing Lockwood, 107
F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
It is important to note that it is the written description
of the claimed subject matter that is of concern. In this
instance, it is our finding that the claims on appeal do not
include the limitation of “an angle of about 10° to 12°,
preferably 10° or less...” that the examiner has pointed to as
the ground of rejection. While such phraseology may well be a
ground for an objection to appellant’s specification, it can not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007