Appeal No. 96-4081
Application 08/417,333
recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented
processes including those limitations." Wertheim, 541 F.2d at
262, 191 USPQ at 96 citing In re Smythe,
480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points out that "[i]t is not
necessary that 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).
The Examiner argues on page 3 of the answer that the
disclosure as originally filed does not provide a description
of a memory cell that consists of a single field effect
transistor. On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner
acknowledges that Appellant's specification on page 1, line
10, cites a single memory cell consisting of a single field
effect transistor. The Examiner argues that this is reference
to Figure 24 which clearly shows multiple transistors and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007