Appeal No. 1998-1315
Application No. 08/334,751
We first turn to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, which rejection we
understand to be based upon the written description
requirement. In general, the test for determining compliance
with the written description requirement of § 112, first
paragraph, 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 under
consideration. Further, it is also well settled that the
content of the drawings may be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement. 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, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir.
1991); see also In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 1 includes the language “an exclusively dry multi-
stage filtering means” which the examiner states is more
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007