Appeal NO. 1996-3683
Application 08/207,393
in terms which correspond in scope to the claims must be taken
as complying with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth
of the statements relied upon therein for enabling support.
Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 223, 169 USPQ at 369.
On the other hand, the question to be resolved concerning
the "written description" requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is whether or not appellants' original
disclosure reasonably conveyed that they were possessed of, as
of their filing date, the invention later claimed by them.
The primary inquiry into satisfaction of the written
description requirement is factual and depends on the nature
of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those
skilled in the art by the disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
In considering this issue the examiner should consider
whether or not appellants' original disclosure has "blaze
marks" on specific trees that mark a trail through the forest
of appellants' disclosure. See In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990,
994-95, 154 USPQ 118, 122 (CCPA 1967). Absent such "blaze
marks", a general disclosure ordinarily will not support
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007