Appeal No. 1997-2688
Application No. 08/453,689
Examiner initially asserts (Answer, page 3) a lack of
description in the original disclosure of the claimed relative
dimensional relationship of the first and second portions of
the source/drain electrode. We agree with the Examiner’s
observation that the specification part of Appellants’
original disclosure is silent as to the specific widths and
depths of the source/drain electrode. It is our view,
however, that, as argued by Appellants (Brief, page 8), the
original drawings, Figure 15 in particular, provide a clear
illustration of the claimed relative width and depth of the
first and second portions of the source/drain electrode. It
is well settled that drawings alone may provide a “written
description” of an invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.
See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh
out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with
the same limitations as the specification.” Autogiro Co. of
America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703
(Ct. Cl. 1967).
Appellants’ description of the invention has further been
questioned by the Examiner with respect to the designation of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007