Appeal No. 95-3455
Application 07/945,902
§ 112.
We agree with appellants that a claim is not intended to
be a blueprint or a production specification. See In re Gay,
309 F.2d 769, 774, 135 USPQ 311, 316 (CCPA 1962). Rather, the
question to be resolved here concerning the "written
description" requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether or not
appellants' original disclosure reasonably conveyed that they
were possessed of, as of their filing date, the invention
later claimed by them. The primary inquiry into satisfaction
of the “written description” requirement is factual and
depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of
knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the
disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90,
96 (CCPA 1976).
As correctly noted by appellants, the steps positively
recited in claim 6, that is, patterning the polysilicon layer
and the tungsten silicide layer by etching are described in
appellants' original disclosure. Moreover, as appellants have
noted, claim 6 is a "comprising" claim and, thus, is open to
the inclusion of other steps and ingredients, even steps and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007