Appeal No. 97-3065 Page 12
Application No. 08/452,747
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Claim 98 recites that "said first and second substrate is
primarily a metallic coating applied to said first and second
rotary transport devices using a high temperature application
process."
The original disclosure provides no description as to the
composition of the substrate 44. However, the original
disclosure does describe (page 12, lines 30-33) that the
coating 48 is applied as a generally metallic composition, by
plasma or other high temperature application process. Thus,
the disclosure of the application as originally filed would
not have reasonably conveyed to the artisan that the inventor
had possession at that time of the later claimed subject
matter (i.e., that the "substrate" is primarily a metallic
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007