Appeal No. 1997-2688
Application No. 08/453,689
Appellants may be their own lexicographer as
long as the meaning assigned to the term is not repugnant to
the
term’s well known usage. In re Hill, 161 F.2d 367, 73 USPQ
482 (CCPA 1947).
Further, the Examiner’s contention that the skilled
artisan would not determine from the illustration in
Appellants’ Figure 15 that doped regions 72 and 74 were
electrodes is totally devoid of support on the record. No
line of reasoning or evidence has been presented by the
Examiner to support such assertion. We are not inclined to
dispense with proof by evidence when the proposition at issue
is not supported by a teaching in a prior art reference,
common knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration.
Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to
establish a prima facie case. In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296
F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer,
354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
For all of the above reasons, it is our opinion that
Appellants have satisfied the statutory written description
requirement because they were clearly in possession of the
invention at the time of filing of the application.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007