Appeal No. 95-0325
Application 07/859,616
We refer to appellant's Brief for the position of appellant and to the Final Rejection and
Examiner's Answer for the position of the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The written description rejection under § 112, first paragraph, is used when a claim is
amended to recite elements thought to be without support in the original disclosure.
In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214-15, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). "[C]laimed
subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the specification in order for that
specification to satisfy the description requirement." In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914,
178 USPQ 620, 624 (CCPA 1973). "[U]nder proper circumstances, drawings alone may provide
a 'written description' of an invention as required by § 112." Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant argues that figure 3f, which "indicates the waveform of the voltage present
across switching transistor Qs" (specification, page 5, lines 5-6), shows that the transistor Qs
conducts "intermittently" and "at a time-varying switching frequency." We agree. Transistor Qs
conducts intermittently: it is either fully conducting (with zero volts across it) or non-conducting
(with the ESC voltage across it) (specification, page 6, first para.; figure 3f). The examiner states
that "the relationship between the transistor Qs and the capacitor ESC as cited in the item (a) of
the brief is not related to the time-varying switching frequency at all" (Examiner's Answer,
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007