Appeal No. 1998-0256
Application No. 08/395,768
sufficient indication to that person that the something is a
part of an appellant's disclosure. See In re Barker, 559 F.2d
588, 593,
194 USPQ 490, 474 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1064
(1978). Precisely how close the original description must
come to comply with the description requirement must be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Our starting point is appellant’s original disclosure,
considered in its entirety.
Considering the background of the invention, a clearly
apparent objective of appellant’s disclosed invention is to
insure that a barrier dam assembly (dam) will not, during use,
slide or otherwise move around in a liquid conduit groove or
work loose since there is a danger that a loose dam would fly
away and cause injury to a lathe operator (specification, page
3, lines 4 through 12, page 4, lines 11 through 16, and page
14, lines 1 through 6 and lines 12 through 16).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007