Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d
1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
Even assuming that the examiner’s rejection is for lack of
written description in the specification, it cannot be sustained.
The examiner’s position is that claim 10 requires a "sensor" for
the shapes of inscribed characters and a "comparator" for the
stored signals and signals from the sensor. 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). In our view, and in the context of this case, if
the required sensing and comparing functions are performed, even
if the appellants have not used the exact words "sensor" and
"comparator" to describe the circuit or apparatus which performs
the functions, the rejection for lack of written description
support is without merit.
In the specification at pages 8-9, it is stated:
The arrangement is such that, when the stylus pen 15 is
moved on the tablet 14 across the display unit 2, a
position designated by the stylus pen 15 is detected in
terms of x and y coordinate values. . . .
* * *
. . . More specifically, after the entry of hand-
written characters by the stylus pen 15 is commenced
beginning from one of the character frames 17, any
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007