Appeal No. 1998-0820
Application No. 08/274,771
As noted by our reviewing court, "[t]he function of the
description requirement [of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
112] is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the
filing date of the application relied on, of the specific
subject matter later claimed by him." In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 262,
191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). "It is not necessary that the
application describe the claim limitations exactly . . . but
only so clearly that persons of ordinary skill in the art will
recognize from the disclosure that appellants invented
processes including those limitations." Wertheim, 541 F.2d at
262,
191 USPQ at 96 citing In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178
USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit
points out that "[i]t is not necessary that the claimed
subject matter be described identically, but the disclosure
originally filed must convey to those skilled in the art that
applicant had invented the subject matter later claimed." In
re Wilder,
736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985), citing In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007