Appeal No. 95-2221
Application No. 07/994,072
have carefully considered the examiner's argument at page 6 of
the answer. However, we agree with appellants that the
disclosures in the specification at page 1, lines 5-18,
particulary lines 14-18; page 7, lines 6-8; and working
examples 1 and 2, when read together, reasonably convey that
appellants' process is to be carried out "without molding
under pressure, heat setting, or calendaring."
The inquiry into whether the description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is met as a question of fact.
In re Wertheim, 541, F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA
1976). Whether the description is adequate to support a later
claimed invention depends on whether the disclosure of the
application originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter. Lack of literal support, in and of
itself, is not sufficient to establish lack of adequate
descriptive support.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1373, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). The description requirement of the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be satisfied if there is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007