Appeal No. 97-2313
Application 29/024,479
“PERIPHERY” portion of the original design.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement of 35 USC § 112, first paragraph, is
whether the disclosure of an application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to an artisan that the inventor had
possession
at that time of the later claimed subject matter. See Vas-Cath
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The now claimed “PERIPHERY” design, a design different
from the originally disclosed and claimed design, is
appropriately determined to lack descriptive support in the
original disclosure. In our opinion, the original design
application disclosure reasonably conveyed to a designer a
shoe with spring design, as a whole, not a “PERIPHERY” design
portion thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The design claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007