Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
that there is no basis for these ratio values in the original
disclosure [answer, pages 2-3]. Appellant argues that the
recitation of molar values is a straightforward conversion of
disclosed percent volume amounts
to equivalent molar amounts.
The rejection for lack of support relates to the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure
that the applicants convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that they were in possession of the
invention as of the filing date of the application. For the
purposes of the written description requirement, the invention
is "whatever is now claimed."
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d
1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant’s arguments regarding the equivalence of the
disclosed and claimed molar ratios to the percentage volume
ratios are not relevant to the claims which are presently
before us. No molar ratios are recited in the claims. The
claims simply recite components by percentage of volume and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007