Appeal No. 2001-1343
Application No. 08/965,818
exceed one revolution of the drive head’; and all of the
subject matter of claims 78-80, 84, 87-89, 92-94, 96-98, 101-
103, 106, 109, and 112" (answer, page 4).
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. 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.
The noted recitations in claims 77, 91, 99 essentially
set forth that the high torque rotation of the drive head can
exceed one revolution. Claim 84, which depends from claim 77,
contains the related recitation that the high-torque wrench
drives the drive head during the high-torque condition at
least one revolution. The appellant’s original disclosure
contains no support for these limitations. The passage from
specification page 7 which purportedly supplies the requisite
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007