Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
the necessary and only reasonable construction to be given the
disclosure by one skilled in the art is one which will lend
clear support for the limita- tion in question. Hyatt, 146
F.3d at 1354-55, 47 USPQ2d at 1132 (reconciling various verbal
expressions of the written descrip- tion test as requiring the
same showing for compliance with the statute); Kennecott Corp.
v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194,
1198 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1008 (1988);
Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915, 918, 175 USPQ 172, 174 (CCPA
1972).
Although a written description “does not have to describe
exactly the subject matter claimed, . . . the description must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re
Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir.
1989)(citation omitted).
The examiner argues on page 9 of the answer that claims
40, 41, 61-68 and 75 lack written description in the
specification to support the claimed “color look-up table.”
Appellant’s specifi- cation as filed does not explicitly use
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007