Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
description requirement of the first paragraph of § 112. In
general, the test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement of § 112 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, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-
1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Upon reviewing claim 66, we note that claim 66 requires
the key to be “thermoexpansively bonded to said handle.”
Claim 63, from which claim 66 depends, additionally requires
the handle to be “permanently bonded to the end of the key.”
Therefore, claim 66 requires that the handle be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007