Appeal No. 98-0964
Application 08/557,436
application with regard to the written description requirement
of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 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. See, e.g., In
re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983) and Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19
USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, and in
accordance with the Court’s determination in Vas-Cath, we
agree with appellant that the drawings of a design application
may provide an adequate written description for the claims of
a subsequently filed utility application.
In the present case, however, even if we might agree with
appellant that an artisan would have clearly understood that
Figures 14 and 16 of the ‘506 design application depict the
arrangement of seating and footwells in a sit-on-top kayak as
set forth in claim 23 on appeal, we find nothing in Mr.
Niemier’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007