Appeal No. 1996-3536 Page 7
Application No. 08/509,006
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. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-
64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The description requirement is that the invention claimed be
described in the specification as filed, and a rejection
thereunder is fully defeated by a specification which
describes the invention in the same terms as the claims. See
In re Bowen, 492 F.2d 859, 864, 181 USPQ 48, 52 (CCPA 1974).
Furthermore, where an original claim is identical in language
to the subject matter now being claimed, nothing more is
required for compliance with the description requirement of
the first paragraph of § 112. See In re Gardner, 475 F.2d
1389, 1391, 177 USPQ 396, 397, supplemental opinion, 480 F.2d
879, 879-80, 178 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1973) and In re Smith, 481
F.2d 910, 914, 178 USPQ 620, 624 (CCPA 1973).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007