Appeal No. 1007-0016
Application No. 08/162,333
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
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007