Appeal No. 2000-0027 Page 6
Application No. 09/072,190
claim 12 has not been amended to correct this error, we
summarily sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The written description rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 15
under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement 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. 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). The examiner has the initial burden of presenting
evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not
recognize in the appellant's disclosure a description of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007