Appeal No. 97-2650 Page 5
Application No. 08/489,257
F.2d 588, 591, 194 USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1977); and In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971). However,
because of the variety of concerns stated by the examiner, it is
not entirely clear to us exactly which requirement the examiner's
rejection is based upon. Accordingly, we will review the claims
as having been rejected under both the written description and
enablement requirements.
Written description
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.
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, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, a rejection based on the
written description requirement is fully defeated by a
specification which describes the invention in the same terms as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007