Appeal No. 98-1316
Application No. 08/420,896
434 U.S. 1238 (1978). With respect to the description
requirement, the court in Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar at 935
F.2d 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1117 stated:
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, requires a
"written description of the invention" which is
separate and
distinct from the enablement requirement. The
purpose
of the "written description" requirement is broader
than to merely explain how to "make and use"; the
applicant must also convey with reasonable clarity
to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date sought, he or she was in possession of the
invention. The invention is, for purposes of the
"written description" inquiry, whatever is now
claimed.
. . . drawings alone may be sufficient to provide
the "written description of the invention" required
by
§ 112, first paragraph.
With these authorities in mind, we have carefully
reviewed the original disclosure and fail to find descriptive
support for the recitation in independent claims 21 and 22
that the fluid catheter has "a second end directly connected
to a dialysate reservoir container [i.e, element 28]."
Contrary to such an arrangement, the specification expressly
states that the:
Fluid line 34 terminates at a catheter (not
shown) that is in fluid communication with the
peritoneal cavity of the patient 26. [Page 10,
lines 25-27; emphasis added.]
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007