Appeal No. 1999-0644 Page 7
Application No. 08/459,460
only other independent claim presented on the application's filing date, recited, inter alia, a
rotatable shaft having a runner with a flat radial runner surface, a seal ring having a pair of
opposed radial surfaces, one of said radial ring surfaces being exposed to pressure and the
other radial ring surface confronting the runner surface, "said other ring surface being shaped
to provide radial convergence of said seal gap" (lines 32-33; emphasis added). This original
claim language indicates that, at the time the application was filed, the appellant regarded the
invention as having the converging shape on the seal ring surface.
With regard to the appellant's arguments on pages 4 and 5 of the brief, it is well settled
that the question of whether a modification is an obvious variant of that which is originally
disclosed is irrelevant insofar as the written description requirement is concerned. See, e.g.,
Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937, 137 USPQ 336, 339 (CCPA 1963).
See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d at 593, 194 USPQ at 474, wherein the court, in quoting with
approval from In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 640, 188 USPQ 129, 131 (CCPA 1975) set
forth: “That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step
is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that the step is part of appellants’
invention.” Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (Bd. App. 1983), aff'd.mem., 738 F.2d
453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007