Appeal No. 1997-4285 Page 5
Application No. 08/420,852
We understand the examiner's rejection as being based
upon the written description requirement of the first
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. However, we note that there is no specific
requirement set forth in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 that claimed terms have clear antecedent basis in the
specification as originally filed. The test for determining
compliance with the written description requirement is whether
the disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had
possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter,
rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the
specification for the claim language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In our view the phrase "reactive settling agent" is
supported by the original specification. The original
specification (e.g., pp. 8-9, 15) clearly provides that a
water purifying composition is added to the wastewater 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