Appeal No. 1997-4259 Application No. 08/259,474 later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language under consideration. See Wang Laboratories Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1556, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (fed. Cir. 1983). In this particular instance, after considering appellants' disclosure as a whole and recognizing that the claimed subject matter does not need to be described in haec verba in the specification in order for the specification to satisfy the written description requirement, it is our opinion that the originally filed specification provides adequate support for the invention claimed. In particular, we note that while the exact "standard mammographic procedures, intensities and exposure times" are not set forth in the specification, we share appellants’ view that one skilled in this particular art at the time of appellants’ invention would have understood what the standard mammographic procedures, 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007