Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
first paragraph.
With respect to the description requirement found in the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
[t]he test for determining compliance with the
written description requirement 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. The content of the drawings may
also be considered in determining compliance with
the written description requirement.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (citations omitted; emphasis added).
After review of appellant’s specification and drawings as
originally filed, it is our determination that such
specification and drawings, although not a model of clarity,
nevertheless do describe or otherwise provide “written
description” support for the presently claimed subject matter.
The examiner’s primary concerns (final rejection, pages 3-5)
in this matter appear to be founded on an alleged lack of
adequate written description for the claim terminology calling
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007