Appeal No. 1996-3324
Application No. 08/132,969
the rejection. Our reviewing court has made it clear that
written description and enablement are separate requirements
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Vas-Cath Inc.
v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ 2d 1111, 1114 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). The terminology “lack of support” has also been
held to imply a reliance on the written description
requirement of the statute. In re Higbee and Jasper, 527 F.2d
1405, 188 USPQ 488, 489 (CCPA 1976).
In view of the factual situation presented to us in this
instance we will interpret the Examiner’s basis for the 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection as reliance on the
“written description” portion of the statute. “The function
of the description requirement [of the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C.
§ 112] is to ensure that the inventor has possession, as of
the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific
subject matter later claimed by him.” In re Wertheim, 541
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007