Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1997-2289                                                        
          Application 08/395,691                                                      

          the written description requirement of the 35 U.S.C.  112,                 
          first paragraph.         Appellant illustrates how the claimed              
          limitation in claim 2 is adequately explained by pointing to                
          page 2 of the originally filed specification.                               
               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 appellant does 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              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007