Appeal No. 97-3918
Application 08/447,901
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. Vas-
Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1116, 1118; In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The subject matter of the claim need not be described
identically or literally for the application to satisfy the
written description requirement. Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera
Int'l Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1422, 5 USPQ2d 1194, 1197 (Fed.
Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 1735 (1988); Wilder,
736 F.2d at 1520, 222 USPQ at 372. An application need not
describe the claim limitations in greater detail than the
invention warrants; it is only necessary that the description
be sufficiently clear that persons skilled in the art would
have recognized that the applicant made the invention having
those limitations. Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505,
3 USPQ2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing In re Wertheim,
541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976)). We agree
with appellants that the original specification adequately
describes "gain control" apparatus for controlling the gain gm
amplifier 24A of Figure 5. As noted above, the specification
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007