Appeal No. 96-3613
Application 08/335,496
the claim language. Further, the content of the drawings may
also be considered in determining compliance with the written
description requirement. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
We are in accord with the examiner’s stated position in the
answer (Paper No. 11) to the effect that the subject matter of
claim 27 lacks descriptive support in the original disclosure.
It follows that claims 29 and 31 through 36 fall with claim 27.
A reading of appellant’s originally filed specification,
claims, and drawing readily reveals to us that this original
disclosure simply does not convey that the present inventor had
possession at that time of the now claimed undisclosed embodiment
wherein the sealing surface protruding from the door is
configured to seal with “the outer surface” of the dispensing
passage, and the lock extending from the door is configured to
engage “the inner surface” of the dispensing passage. As
indicated above, the circumstance that one skilled in the art
might realize from reading a disclosure that something is
possible (an undisclosed variation) is not a sufficient
indication to that person that the something is part of an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007