Appeal No. 96-0885
Application 08/108,932
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The examiner argues that appellant’s specification does
not describe or enable consistently folding a potato slice
(answer, pages 4 and 10).
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In
re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA
1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96
(CCPA 1976). The examiner has the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of lack of an adequate written
description. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 265, 191 USPQ at 98.
Appellant’s specification (page 3, lines 7-14) discloses
that bending the sheet layer of flexible, edible material
about a fold line permits consistently bent chips to be
formed. The examiner has not explained, and it is not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007