Appeal No. 2005-0166
Application 09/789,872
manufacturing metric distribution by relating manufacturing
characteristic data to the metric of interest and adjusting the
target value based on the metric distribution [brief, pages 3-5].
The examiner responds that there is no explanation of how
the target monitor evaluates the manufacturing metric
distribution, and what is meant by a predetermined strategy. The
examiner asserts that the specification does not support the
generation of manufacturing metrics using manufacturing data
[answer, pages 14-16].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The purpose
of the written description requirement is to ensure that the
applicants convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the
art that they were in possession of the invention as of the
filing date of the application. For the purposes of the written
description requirement, the invention is "whatever is now
claimed." Vas-cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19
USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We agree with appellants
that everything recited in the claimed invention has clear
support in the specification as filed. Although some of the
examiner’s comments may suggest that the examiner is questioning
enablement compliance rather than written description compliance,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007