Appeal No. 1997-2688
Application No. 08/453,689
appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in
support of the rejection and the evidence relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Appellants’ specification in this application
describes the claimed invention in a manner which complies
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we
reverse.
The function of the description requirement of the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to ensure that the
inventor has possession, as of the filing date of the
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him.
In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA
1976). "It is not necessary that the application describe the
claim limitations exactly, . . . but only so clearly that
persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize from the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007