Appeal No. 2000-0321 Page 9
Application No. 08/834,578
which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that
the appellants, at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention.
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).
Each of the claims under appeal recite that each
cantilevered arm member has a stiffness such that the
resilient support member supports the user's arch "without the
use of any auxiliary supporting mechanism." We have reviewed
the application as originally filed and fail to find any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007