Appeal No. 1999-0983
Application No. 08/782,891
and do not agree with it, there being no such restriction in
the statute or case law.
Since, as discussed above, under the sixth paragraph of
§ 112, "carcass anchoring means" is construed to cover the
bead wire and equivalents thereof, the question remains as to
whether, assuming arguendo that § 112, first paragraph,
requires that the originally-filed application have included a
written description of such "equivalents thereof," said
application in fact did so. It is of course not necessary
that specific equivalents be described in the specification,
"for such a requirement would render [§ 112, sixth paragraph]
meaningless." Toro Co. v. White Consol. Ind., Inc., 199 F.3d
1295, 1300, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Rather, we
apply the fundamental test for compliance with the written
description requirement, namely, would the application as
filed, considered as a whole, have conveyed to one of ordinary
skill in the art, either explicitly or inherently, that
applicant invented the subject matter claimed. Reiffin v.
Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1346, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
In the present case, we consider that this test is met
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007