Appeal No. 94-2080
Application 07/982,068
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of
literal support in the specification for the claim language.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Satisfaction of the written
description requirement does not require the description to be in
ipsis verbis antecedence in the originally filed application. In
re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
without written description in the original specification.
The obviousness rejection based on
Wickstrom, Imaizumi, and Castrucci
We do not sustain this ground of rejection.
Wickstrom discloses a vertical field effect transistor
structure built on the sides of finger-like mesas only the
central portion of which is described as being substantially
vertical. Also, it does not identify or discuss the orientation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007