Appeal No. 1997-2194 Page 8
Application No. 08/195,018
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The written description requirement serves "to ensure
that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him; how 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." Vas-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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007