Appeal No. 97-2876
Application 08/335,008
§ 112, first paragraph. In re Higbee, 527 F.2d 1405, 1406,
188 USPQ 488, 489 (CCPA 1976).
The test to be applied under the written description
portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is whether the
disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the inventors had possession at
that time of later claimed subject matter. Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117, reh’g.
denied (Fed. Cir. July 8, 1991) and reh’g, en banc denied
(Fed. Cir. July 29, 1991).
The manner in which the specification as filed meets the
written description requirement is not material. The
requirement may be met by either an express or an implicit
disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90,
96 (CCPA 1976). An invention claimed need not be described in
ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169
USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The question is not whether an
added word was the word used in the specification as filed,
but whether there is support in the specification for the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007