Appeal No. 1996-1141
Application 08/109,166
Contrary to appellants’ arguments, we do not find that appellants’ specification, at
page 5, lines 12-13 nor the preferred embodiment as shown in Figure 1, supports the now
claimed range. The language at page 5, lines 12-13 refers to a “plurality of 90° turns” and
Figure 1 shows the flow undergoing successive 90° turns, or a 180° change in direction.
However, the disclosure cited by appellants does not support for the phrase
“approximately 90° or more” which describes changes in direction other than the two
.
angles disclosed, 90° and 180° We do not find that the appellants’ disclosure at the time
of the filing describes a gas flow in which the gas may undergo changes of direction in the
range of 90° to 180°.
Appellants further argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
0
present invention includes embodiments with changes of direction of approximately 90 or
more. However, the question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of
that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, the specification itself must describe
an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can clearly
conclude that the inventor was in possession of the invention at the time of the filing date
sought. Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571, 41 USPQ2d 1961,
1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). An applicant is entitled to claim as broad as the prior art and his
disclosure will allow. The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479, 45
USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here the narrow disclosure of the change in
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007