Appeal No. 1997-1498
Application No. 08/251,148
originally filed. Vas-cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265, 191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976)(“lack
of literal support... is not enough... to support a rejection
under 112"). The test is whether the application disclosure
as originally filed reasonably conveys to one of ordinary
skill in the art that applicants had possession of the
presently claimed subject matter. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-
Mar-Co. Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279,
284 (CCPA 1973).
The dispositive question here is, therefore, whether
Table 1 at page 12 of the specification reasonably conveys to
one of ordinary skill in the art that appellants had
possession of the newly added limitation “wherein the amount
of said 2, 6-naphthalene dicarboxylic acid in the acid
component is greater than about 30 mol% when 1,4 cyclohexane-
dimethanol is present in said glycol component” in claim 1.
We answer this question in the negative.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007