Appeal No. 1997-0221
Application 08/248,496
USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As stated by our
reviewing court in Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at
1117:
The purpose of the ‘written description’
requirement is broader than to merely explain how to
‘make and use’; the applicant must also convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that,
as of the filing date sought, he or she was in
possession of the invention. The invention is, for
purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry,
whatever is now claimed (citations omitted).
Appellant discloses that the trace elements “comprise
less than 1% manganese, zinc, iron ....” (page 10, ll. 1-3, of
the specification). Appellant also discloses the amounts of
“trace elements and vitamins” in the “present invention” is 3-
4% (specification, page 14, Example 1). Even though these
disclosures might be termed “ambiguous,” the examiner has not
met the initial burden of establishing that appellant has
failed to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in
the art that he was in possession of the claimed subject
matter in question as of the filing date of this application.
In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). The examiner appears to urge that either
interpretation of the claimed subject matter in question is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007