Appeal No. 96-2697
Application 08/215,170
recited in claim 1. It is not necessary that the
specification specifically identify all claimed narrower
values which fall within the broader range as set forth in the
original disclosure. Therefore, as a factual matter, persons
skilled in the art would consider the ratios recited in the
claims to be part of appellant’s original disclosure. Note In
re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 264, 191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976).
Under the facts of this case, as long as the presently claimed
values fall within the range of values as originally
disclosed, appellant has satisfied the written description
requirement because he was clearly in possession of the
invention at the time of filing the application.
To the extent that the examiner’s rejection is based
on the fact that the identical language of the claims does not
appear in the original disclosure, we observe that a
difference in language between the disclosure and the claims
is not alone controlling. Written description support under
the first paragraph of Section 112 does not require literal
support for the later claimed invention. Id. The invention
recited in the appealed claims represents a narrower range of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007