Appeal No. 2001-1355
Application No. 09/110,348
The test for 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.
Although the appellant’s original disclosure does not
expressly describe the support wall 50 or the top/dome 30, 32,
as being removable from the housing 12, it stands to reason
that these elements are necessarily removable to allow ice
blocks 90 to be placed in the housing. The recitation that
the top or dome is removable “with” the support wall merely
signifies that both
elements are removable, and not, as implied by the examiner,
that they are somehow structurally interrelated for joint
removal. Thus, the disclosure of the application as
originally filed would reasonably convey to the artisan that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007