Appeal No. 1997-1506 Page 7
Application No. 08/442,413
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing rejection
of claims 5 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on a non-enabling disclosure.
Written Description Rejections
In rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, the examiner's position is that the language "a
device by which opposing forces are applied to the lever
element" in claim 15, which was added by amendment in Paper
No. 9, is not supported in the disclosure as originally filed.
We do not agree.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to one of
ordinary skill in the art 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).
Page 6 of the specification as originally filed stated:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007