Appeal No. 1998-0613
Application 08/554,998
page 4 of the brief that claims 76 through 83 all stand or
fall together. Therefore, we will treat claim 76 as the
representative claim.
Initially we note that the Examiner’s reasoning for lack
of “support” for the claimed invention herein, implicitly
refers to the written description portion of this statutory
provision. In re Higbee, 527 F.2d 1405, 1406, 188 USPQ 488,
489 (CCPA 1976). The purpose of the written description
requirement is to ensure that the applicants convey with
reasonable clarity, to those skilled in the art, that they
were in possession of the invention as of the filing date of
the application. For the purposes of the written description
requirement, the invention is "whatever is now claimed." Vas-
cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The manner in which the specification as filed meets the
written description requirement is not material. The
requirement may be met by either an express or an implicit
disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90,
96 (CCPA 1976). An invention claimed need not be described in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007