Appeal No. 1997-2857
Application 08/171,175
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 disclosure that
appellants invented processes including those limitations."
Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 citing In re Smythe,
480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points out that "[i]t is not
necessary that the claimed subject matter be described
identically, but the disclosure originally filed must convey
to those skilled in the art that applicant had invented the
subject matter later claimed." In re Wilder,
736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985), citing In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007