Appeal No. 1999-1158
Application No. 08/687,427
§ 112 as being based upon an original disclosure which fails to
comply with the written description requirement of this
paragraph.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. section 103 as
being unpatentable over Young; claims 1-7 are rejected under
section 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Taylor
or Miyazawa; and claim 8 is rejected under section 103 as being
unpatentable over Young in view of Miyazawa.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain any of
the above noted rejections.
With respect to the section 112, first paragraph,
rejection, 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 claim
language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007