Appeal No. 99-1439 Page 5
Application No. 29/033,921
Appellant seems to concede as much. He nevertheless
contends in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of the
brief that the test regarding the description requirement
in the first paragraph of § 112 is satisfied in this case
because he "had possession of both embodiments at the same
time as supported by the two co-pending applications filed
on the same date." We disagree.
As stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983), "[t]he test for
determining compliance with the written description
requirement in the first paragraph of § 112 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, . . ." (emphasis added). See also In re Wilder,
736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
("the disclosure originally filed must convey to those
skilled in the art that applicant had invented the subject
matter later claimed"). The statute itself, in setting
out the requirements for the contents of the specification
in a patent application, explicitly states that "[t]he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007