Appeal No. 1997-2760
Application No. 08/302,133
1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In establishing a basis for a
rejection under the written description requirement of the
statute, the Examiner has the initial burden of presenting
evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not
recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the
invention defined by the claims. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 265,
191 USPQ at 98. Despite Appellant’s lack of arguments
directed to the “written description” issue raised by the
Examiner, it is our opinion that the Examiner has not provided
sufficient reasons or evidence to satisfy such burden. The
Examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) a lack of description of the
claimed interactive display panel, graphic tablet, and control
electronics. Our review of Appellants’ disclosure, however,
reveals that the illustration in the sole drawing figure and
the accompanying description at page 4 of the specification
provide a clear description of the display panel and
associated graphic tablet and control as claimed. In our
opinion, under the factual situation presented in the present
case, Appellants have satisfied the statutory written
description requirement because they were clearly in
possession of the invention at the time of filing of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007