Appeal No. 95-1955
Application 08/109,982
The function of the description requirement is to ensure
that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265, 191 USPQ 90,
98 (CCPA 1976). How the specification accomplishes this is not
material, and it is not necessary that the specification describe
the claim limitations exactly. Id. Under the written
description requirement, a specification need not describe the
claimed invention in ipsis verbis to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ
465, 467 (CCPA 1978). The test is whether the originally filed
specification reasonably conveys to a person having ordinary
skill that applicant had possession of the subject matter later
claimed. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, we think it does.
The examiner may not limit a review of the specification to
only a single paragraph in the disclosure. Rather, the entire
document must be considered as a whole in determining what it
would convey to one with ordinary skill in the art. In that
regard, we note several other portions of the specification:
Page 1, lines 24-32
Random events may cause data within non-volatile
memories to be incorrectly read or written. In postage
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007