Appeal No. 1999-1761
Application No. 08/889,872
The description issue
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement 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. Further, the content of the drawings may also be
considered in determining compliance with the written
description requirement. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
At issue is the question of whether appellant’s
underlying disclosure descriptively supports the recitation in
independent claim 1 of release tabs of a locking button for
"moving independently of button teeth" in a direction parallel
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007