Appeal No. 1999-1785
Application No. 08/512,656
1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way,
"the applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to
those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
he or she was in possession of the invention." Vas-Cath, Inc.
v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Finally, "[p]recisely how close the
original description must come to comply with the description
requirement of section 112 must be determined on a
case-by-case basis." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039,
34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935
F.2d at 1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116).
With this as background, we conclude that there is no
evidence of record that appellant had possession of the
subject matter recited in claim 16 at the time of filing the
application. In particular, we can find no description in the
specification or showing in the drawings that would convey to
one of ordinary skill in this art that appellant was, as of
the filing date of the application, in possession of a seat
for a seal member wherein at least a portion of the seat is
beveled, and wherein the seal lip contacts the internal member
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007