Ex parte RIEK et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 97-2600                                                          
          Application 08/500,091                                                      



          (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194 USPQ              
          470, 472 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1064 (1978).  As               
          the court stated in Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d                
          at 1117:                                                                    
                    35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, requires                        
                    a "written description of the invention"                          
                    which                                                             
                    is separate and distinct from the                                 
                    enablement requirement.  The purpose of the                       
                    "written description" requirement is                              
                    broader than to merely explain how to "make                       
                    and use"; the applicant must also 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.                                          
                                                                                     
                    . . . [D]rawings alone may be suffi-cient                         
                    to provide the "written description   of                          
                    the invention" required by  112, first                           
                    paragraph.                                                        
                                                                                     
                    Here, it is true that the appellants’ specification               
          only broadly refers to the element identified in Fig. 7 by the              
          numeral 48 as a “spiral” which, e.g., is “made from a wire”                 
          (see page 15) and makes no mention of this spiral or wire                   
          performing  a cutting operation.  It is also true that (1)                  
          Auburn teaches that a spiral in the form of screw threads on a              

                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007