Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
(claim 119) and traction means (claim 132) “distribute weight
in a plurality of different directions” to provide (adequate)
traction. We agree. Our reasoning in support of this8
conclusion follows.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of an
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. Further, the content of the drawings may also be
considered in determining compliance with the written
description requirement. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). The purpose of this provision is to ensure that
claimed subject matter does not overreach the scope of an
inventor’s contribution to the field of art described in a
8Claims 119 and 132 were introduced into the application
(Paper No. 24) subsequent to the filing thereof.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007