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,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007