Appeal No. 95-2063
Application 07/965,314
provide “expressive disclosure” of the claimed limitation.
Answer, p. 4. We find this position untenable.
To comply with the written description requirement, “the
applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she
was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for
purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now
claimed.” [Emphases in original.] Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It is not necessary that the specification describe the claim
limitations exactly. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ
90, 96 (CCPA 1976). In reviewing the specification, we do not
find that the appellant has arbitrarily selected the presently
claimed volume range of alcohol. Rather, we find that the
specification discloses compositions having approximately 70-90%
by volume of alcohol (p. 4, line 29) and 74.5-81.5% by volume of
alcohol (p. 4, line 34). Moreover, in our view, one skilled in
the art would have understood, in reading the specification, that
because the alcohol content of the SOG composition must be
balanced with the ingredients specified in subsections (a) and
(b) of claim 12; i.e., the approximately 15% to 22% by volume of
tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) and the approximately 0.2% to 1.3%
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007