Appeal No. 96-1603
Application 08/057,989
force absorbing means as recited by claim 15 and thus relies
on the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We initially note that the written description
requirement is separate from the enablement requirement. See
In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed.
Cir. 1984), cert. denied, sub nom Wilder v. Mossinghoff, 469
U.S. 1209 (1985).
The purpose of the written description requirement is to
ensure that the inventor had possession of the invention as of
the filing date. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ
90, 96 (CCPA 1976). In deciding whether or not the written
description requirement has been satisfied, the content of the
drawings, may be considered. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellant, while recognizing that the originally filed
specification refers to a “static” rather than “hydrostatic”
bearing, asserts that it is self-evident from Figure 2 that
bearing 15 is a hydrostatic bearing. According to appellant,
ports, which are shown but not numbered, communicate with
grooves which are also shown but not numbered. Appellant
concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would note by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007