Appeal No. 96-0396
Application 08/091,953
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had posses-
sion at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather
than the presence or absence of literal support in the specifica-
tion for the claim language under consideration. Further, it is
also well settled that the content of the drawings may be consid-
ered in determining compliance with the written description
requirement. See Wang Lab. Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858,
865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991). See also In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner has taken the position, that appellants
set forth that the DC to DC converters in the specification,
as originally filed, operated to lower both the DC voltage
and current. The originally filed specification (page 8,
lines 5-10) does appear to indicate, or at least imply, that
both the voltage and current were to be lowered by the DC to DC
converters. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the power input to a DC to DC converter must
equal the power leaving the DC to DC converter, minus the losses
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007