Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
"written description of the invention." See Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 956, 133 USPQ 537,
542 (CCPA 1962).
With this as our background, we turn to the examiner's
characterization of the recitation in the claims on appeal
regarding the cross-sectional flow area of the first and
second mixers being “taken generally perpendicular to the
direction of flow through said respective mixers...,” as being
without support in the specification. While the examiner is
correct in observing that appellants’ original specification
does not expressly indicate that the cross-sectional flow
areas of the first and second mixers are taken generally
perpendicular to the direction of flow through said respective
mixers, we find that we are in agreement with appellants’
arguments on pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief that these
claims only recite that which one skilled in the art would
have viewed as being apparent (inherent) from the original
disclosure of appellants’ application. Accordingly, it is our
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007