Appeal No. 1997-3798 Page 5
Application No. 08/272,018
requirement of section 112 must be determined on a
case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039,
34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935
F.2d at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116). Further, the content of the
drawings may also be considered in determining compliance with
the written description requirement. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1116-17 and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
The examiner has identified three claimed limitations as
not complying with the written description requirement
(answer, pp. 4-5). Specifically, the examiner directs our
attention to the last paragraph of claim 2, claim 15 and claim
16. The appellant argues (brief, pp. 9-10) that the rejection
is in error since the drawings (e.g., Figures 2 and 4) clearly
depict the claimed limitations in question. The examiner
found this argument unpersuasive (answer, p. 8) since the
drawings do not clearly show the claimed rectangular portion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007