Appeal No. 97-1475
Application 08/069,544
originally filed and as amended), the applied references, and the
respective positions of the examiner and appellant regarding the
various issues before us on appeal. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 11
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we note that
the test for determining compliance with the written description
requirement of the first paragraph of §112 is whether the
disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonablely
conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that
time of the later claimed subject matter. See In re Kaslow, 707
F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this
regard, it is important to additionally understand that the
claimed subject matter does not have to be expressed in ipsis
verbis in the specification in order to satisfy the description
requirement of §112 (See In re Wertheim 541 F.2d, 257, 265, 191
USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976)) and that, under appropriate circum-
stances, the original drawings may also provide the required
"written description of the invention." See Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935, F.2d, 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d, 950, 956, 133 USPQ 537, 543
(CCPA 1962).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007