Appeal No. 96-1608
Application 08/220,462
the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are
indefinite.
Claims 9 and 10, and claims 3, 7, 12 and 14 through 16
which depend therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails
to comply with the written description provision of this
section of the statute.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description provision is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The content of the drawings may also
be considered in determining compliance with the written
description requirement. Id. Here, the disclosure of the
application as originally filed would not reasonably convey to
the artisan that the appellant had possession at that time of
an articulated structure wherein all of the members are of a
substantially cylindrical shape as is now recited in the first
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007