Interference No. 103,036
The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, requires that an application convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of its
filing date, applicant was in possession of the invention. Vas-
Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To comply with the description
requirement, it is not necessary that the application describe
the claimed invention in ipsis verbis, 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
Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245, 1250, 195 USPQ 434, 438 (CCPA 1977).
In item 2, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for "a
sealed chamber, cell or bubble" limitation of reissue claims 13
to 15, 19, 23, and 27. The motion relies upon the testimony of
Dr. Feder at pages 44 to 55 of the party Cataldi et al.'s record
(CR 44 to 55). Dr. Feder testified that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not disclose this limitation as being a part
of the structure of the voltage indicator but rather discloses
-21-
Page: Previous 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007