Appeal No. 1997-0321
Application 08/052,494
the specification accomplishes this is not material." In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). In
order to meet the written description requirement, the
appellants do not have to utilize any particular form of
disclosure to describe the subject matter claimed, but "the
description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in
the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is
claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d
1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way, "the applicant
must . . . 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." Vasilkov-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). Finally, "[p]recisely how close the original
description must come to comply with the description
requirement of section 112 must be determined on a
case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039,
34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vasilkov-Cath,
935 F.2d at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116).
Here, the Examiner contends [answer, pages 4 to 5] that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007