Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced
by Appellants and the Examiner, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. However we
affirm the remaining rejections. Our reasons follow.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-15, 48 and 49 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time
that the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention. We reverse.
With regard to written descriptive support, all that is
required is that Appellants’ specification reasonably convey to
one of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of the
application, Appellants were in possession of the presently
claimed invention; how the specification accomplishes this is
not material. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Edwards, 586 F.2d 1349,
1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007