Appeal No. 98-1032
Application 08/620,658
1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). In other words,
the teachings of Kolloch, because of the matter with which it
deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
attention in considering the fabrication of a like dispenser.
See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new
ground of rejection.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, 16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on an
original disclosure that does not provide descriptive support
for the invention as now claimed.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
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.
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007