Appeal No. 97-1493
Application 08/429,806
requirement of this section of the statute. The test for
determining compliance with the written description requirement
is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had
possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter,
rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the
specification for the claim language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The content of
the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement. Id.
According to the examiner, the originally filed disclosure
does not support the recitation in claim 12 of “a means for
changing the pressure of the fluid from a first pressure when the
carrier is stationary to a second pressure . . . when the carrier
is transported.” A review of the originally filed disclosure
shows the examiner’s position to be well founded. The portions
of the specification relied upon by the appellant to traverse the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007