Appeal No. 1999-2556
Application 08/774,848
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). The content of the drawings may also be
considered in determining compliance with the written
description requirement. Id.
Notwithstanding the statement on page 17 of the original
specification that
mixing and matching of the foregoing embodiments
provides devices having a desired combination of
features. Therefore, any such combination is
likewise
considered to be within the scope of the present
invention,
there is no basis in the original disclosure for the subject
matter now recited in claims 3, 7 and 8. As indicated above,
these claims depend from independent claim 1. Claim 1 is
limited to the animal control device shown in Figure 5 and
described on specification page 13 wherein the base 80 and cap
84 are held together by a stake 92 extending therethrough and
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007