Appeal No. 99-1439 Page 4
Application No. 29/033,921
a result, we conclude that the rejection of the appealed
claim is sustainable.
In design cases, as in utility cases, the test for
compliance with the written description requirement in the
first paragraph of § 112 is whether the disclosure as
originally filed in the application in question reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at
that time of the later claimed subject matter. In re
Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 1456, 46 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). In a design case, the drawings of the
illustrated design are viewed in terms of the written
description requirement of § 112. Id. Accordingly, the
design shown in the pending drawings and constituting the
later claimed invention must have been illustrated or
otherwise described in the application disclosure as
filed. See generally Vas-Cath. Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the present case, we agree with the examiner that
the second embodiment added by amendment to the instant
application is not supported by the drawings or other
disclosure as originally filed in this application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007