Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 9
Application No. 08/706,767
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 15 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The written description rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 15 to 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, but not the rejection of claims
25 to 34.
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. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007