Appeal No. 96-0654
Application 08/103,207
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 originally filed specification, Appellant
describes
on page 4 an interpolating reproduction unit 70 as illustrated
in Figure 1. Therefore, the description requirement of the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been met because the
specification conveys to persons of ordinary skill in the art
that Appellant had possession, as of the filing date of the
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him.
An inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms
used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007