Appeal No. 98-0103 Page 6
Application No. 08/248,745
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. 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).
The language at issue in independent claim 1 is "a
substantially flat piece of laser absorptive material constructed
to absorb more than 60% of laser energy generated by a laser beam
impinging upon a surface of the laser absorptive material." The
language at issue in independent claim 16 is "the substantially
flat piece of laser absorptive material absorbs more than 60% of
laser energy generated by a laser beam impinging upon a surface
of the laser absorptive material." The recitation in claims 1
and 16 that the laser absorptive material absorbs more than 60%
of laser energy generated by a laser beam impinging upon a
surface of the laser absorptive material language is not
supported by the disclosure of the application as originally
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007