Appeal No. 1997-4111 Page 7
Application No. 08/540,947
the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is
claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614,
1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way, "the applicant must .
. . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art
that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in
possession of the invention." Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Finally, "[p]recisely how close the original description must
come to comply with the description 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).
It is our determination that the originally filed
specification does provide written description support for the
subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4 and 11. In that regard,
persons of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
originally filed application (pp. 4-10) describes (1) a plug
that fills and closes a hole on insertion of the plug in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007