Appeal No. 2005-2663 Page 9
Application No. 10/140,323
We will reverse this rejection. To satisfy the written description requirement, the
specification need not contain the identical words used in the claims. See Purdue
Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (“[T]he disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba
support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”). The written description requirement is
satisfied in the disclosure conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that
the inventor was in possession of the invention. See id.
With respect to claim 5, the limitation that is of concern to the examiner reads as
follows: “component[j] is a data structure which is an array indexed by nodes j.” The
specification discloses an algorithm identical to that recited in claim 5 (see Figure 11)
but does not specifically define what is represented by component[j]. As the examiner
noted, however, the specification states that the algorithm “uses a data structure
component[i] which is an array indexed by nodes i of G.” Page 28. Appellant argues,
and the examiner does not dispute, that those skilled in the art recognize the “i” and “j”
letters as mere holding variables.
In view of that understanding, those skilled in the art would understand the
specification’s definition that “data structure component[i] . . . is an array indexed by
nodes i of G” to be generic to any “component[ ]”. That is, the definition given in the
specification would have been understood to apply generically to the Figure 11
algorithm: “data structure component[ ] . . . is an array indexed by nodes _ of G.” Since
the holding variable has no special significance, we agree with Appellant that the
specification adequately describes the limitation at issue in claim 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007