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