Appeal No. 95-4761
Application No. 08/012,781
F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). "It is not
necessary that the application describe the claim limitations
exactly, . . . but only so clearly that persons of ordinary
skill in the art will recognize from the disclosure that
appellants invented processes including those limitations."
Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 citing In re Smythe,
480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points out that "[i]t is not
necessary that the claimed subject matter be described
identically, but the disclosure originally filed must convey
to those skilled in the art that applicant had invented the
subject matter later claimed." In re Wilder,
736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985), citing In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the Examiner’s view (Answer, page 3), the grid
described at page 8 of the specification and illustrated in
Figure 3 of the drawings does not have non-intersecting lines
as recited in claim 17. We agree with the Examiner that each
of the lines 500 and 502, although identified by Appellants’
specification as non-intersecting relative to each other, are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007