Appeal No. 1995-1703 Application 07/897,304 The first rejection rests on the examiner’s determination (see page 5 in the main answer) that the appellants’ specification fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, with respect to the recitation in claim 21 that the outer tubing layer has a “maximum destructive elongation value” of at least 150%. The appellants counter that “elongation value is commonly referred to as elongation value at break and that one skilled in the art would understand this from the specification taken in its entirety” (main brief, page 20). 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. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007