Appeal No. 1998-1625
Application 08/306,517
A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description requirement if it conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the
claimed
invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow,
707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In
re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA
1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96
(CCPA 1976). “[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting
evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not
recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention
defined by the claims.” Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ
at 97.
The examiner argues: “Graft and stem molecules are not
described adequately enough that it can be clearly
distinguished what is meant by graft and stem, and which
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007