Appeal No. 2000-1000
Application No. 08/392,062
As our review Court stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983):
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. The content of the drawings may also be
considered in determining compliance with the
written description requirement. (citations
omitted)
Of course, a claimed invention does not necessarily have to be
expressed in ipsis verbus in order to satisfy the description
requirement. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265, 191 USPQ
90, 98 (CCPA 1976)). However, it must also be kept in mind
that the fact one skilled in the art might realize from
reading a disclosure that something is possible is not a
sufficient indication to that person that the something is a
part of an appellant's disclosure. See In re Barker, 559 F.2d
588, 593, 194 USPQ 490, 474 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434
U.S. 1064 (1978). Precisely how close the original
description must come to comply with the description
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007