Appeal No. 1997-3870
Application No. 08/421,055
13. However, appellants argue that the specification, when read
as a whole, including page 7, ll. 8-17, page 27, ll. 17-19, and
page 28, ll. 9-22, demonstrates applicants’ recognition that in
certain instances it is desirable to provide an article having a
smooth surface or an article having a predetermined design on its
surface (id.).
Ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
disclosure need only reasonably convey to those of ordinary skill
in the art that the inventors had possession of the subject
matter in question. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570,
39 USPQ2d 1895, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We agree with the
examiner that appellants’ disclosure does not reasonably convey
to one of ordinary skill in the art that appellants had
possession of “said [dimensionally stable] film having a pre-
selected surface topography” as recited in claim 6 on appeal.
Appellants’ citation of supporting disclosure (Brief, page
13) is not persuasive. The disclosure at page 27, ll. 17-19, of
the specification merely states that the dimensionally stable
film “can be used to provide smooth surfaces....” The examiner
agrees that the films can be used on smooth surfaces (Answer,
page 6). The disclosure at page 28, ll. 9-22, only sets forth
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007