Interference No. 103,036
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, In re Lukach,
442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971); all that is
required is that the application reasonably convey to persons
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date thereof, the
inventor had possession of the subject matter later claimed by
him. In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467
(CCPA 1978) and In re Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245, 1248-49, 195 USPQ
434, 437 (CCPA 1977). Each question of compliance with § 112,
first paragraph, must be decided on its own facts. In re
Driscoll, 562 F.2d at 1250, 195 USPQ at 438 and Prutton v.
Fuller, 230 F.2d 459, 109 USPQ 59 (CCPA 1956).
We agree with the party Burroughs et al. that the
Burroughs et al. specification contains a sufficient written
description within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for the category A, C, and D claims , which are19
directed to the presence of thermal insulation.
It is urged by the party Burroughs et al. that with respect19
to its category C and D claims the means recitation is broad and that
it is not necessary to make any finding that thermal nonconductivity
is required by these claims.
-57-
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007