Appeal 2007-1856
Application 10/808,652
concave and convex structures as taught by Baudin on the device of Gerondale in
order to provide a more complete seal and thus help prevent drying of the product
around the aperture.” (Final Office Action 3.)
8. Baudin discloses a cap 8 having: (1) a seat 14 surrounding a convex
surface 40 and (2) a concave surface defined by member 21 on the neck 6 (Baudin,
Figure 3). The convex surface 40 and the concave surface 21 are disclosed as
having matching shapes (Baudin, col. 5, ll. 14-15) which is otherwise interpreted
as having equal radii.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The factual inquiry for determining whether a specification provides
sufficient written description for the claimed invention is whether the specification
conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the
claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words,
structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed
invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d
1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claimed invention is unpatentable if the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
“such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” KSR Int’l v.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013