Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
rather than segmented across both the product wafer and the
stimulus wafer. "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 included 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).
In view of the above discussion, it is our conclusion that,
under the factual situation presented in the present case, the
statutory written description requirement has been satisfied
because Appellants were clearly in possession of the invention at
the time of filing of the application. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 57, 58, and 66-71 under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning to a discussion of the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 57, 58, and 66-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by King '405 or King '241, we note that anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007