Appeal No. 97-2650 Page 6
Application No. 08/489,257
the claims. See In re Bowen, 492 F.2d 859, 864, 181 USPQ 48, 52
(CCPA 1974).
We have reviewed the specific concerns stated by the
examiner in this rejection of claims 12 through 14 and 17 through
19, but find nothing therein which supports a rejection based
upon the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. In addition, we have reviewed the subject
matter recited in the claims under appeal and have determined
that these claims do comply with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
For the reasons set forth above, the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the subject
matter recited in claims 12 through 14 and 17 through 19.
Enablement
An analysis of whether the claims under appeal are supported
by an enabling disclosure requires a determination of whether
that disclosure contained sufficient information regarding the
subject matter of the appealed claims as to enable one skilled in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007