Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
this phrase when steps (3) and (4) are read together (Brief,
pages 9 and 11).
An ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy
the written description requirement of section 112. The
disclosure need only reasonably convey to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the
subject matter in question. See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349,
1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978). We agree with
appellants that steps (3) and (4) of claim 1, part (c), when
read together, reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in
the art that appellants had possession of the phrase in
question since step (4) must be a countercurrent purge with “a
CO-enriched fluid” sufficient to desorb the weakly adsorbing
purge fluid of step (3). See the specification, page 40,
lines 1-7. The “weakly adsorbing fluid” in step (3) must be
capable of being desorbed by the CO-enriched purge fluid of
step (4).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that appellants
have provided implicit support that would reasonably convey to
one of ordinary skill in the art that appellants were in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007