Ex parte NOBUAKI MATSUDA et al. - Page 4

             Appeal No. 95-3623                                                                                   
             Application 07/714,407                                                                               

                    would result in insufficient wettability or                                                   
                    defoamability and an amount larger than 5% by weight                                          
                    would spoil smoothness of pattern shapes.”] is neither                                        
                    recited nor exemplified by the specification with                                             
                    respect to the combination of an acetylenic surface                                           
                    active agent and a quaternary ammonium surface active                                         
                    agent.  Therefore, it would not be readily apparent                                           
                    from the disclosure to persons of ordinary skill in the                                       
                    art to interpret the recitation “the surface active                                           
                    agent may be used in an amount of from 0.01 to 5% by                                          
                    weight” at page 10, lines 8-9 as reciting that the                                            
                    acetylenic alcohol surface active agent and a                                                 
                    quaternary ammonium salt surface active agents [sic,                                          
                    agent] are “collectively present in an amount of 0.01                                         
                    to 5.0% by weight” (emphasis added).                                                          
                    In order for appellants’ specification to provide written                                     
             descriptive support for the invention presently claimed, all that                                    
             is required is that it reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill                                    
             in the art that 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, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-2, 196 USPQ 465, 467                                       
             (CCPA 1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96                                      
             (CCPA 1976).  It is not necessary that the application describe                                      
             the presently-claimed invention exactly, but only sufficiently                                       
             clearly that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize                                        
             from the disclosure that appellants invented it.  See Edwards,                                       
             568 F.2d at 1351-2, 196 USPQ at 467; Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007