Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Lack of Description
We sustain the rejection of claims 24, 25, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
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.
Further, the content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
3(...continued)
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007