Appeal No. 1998-1827 Page 7
Application No. 08/644,932
196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). Concerning this matter, it
is not necessary that the application describes the presently
claimed invention exactly, but only sufficiently clearly that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the
disclosure that appellants invented it. See Edwards, 568 F.2d
at 1351-352, 196 USPQ at 467; Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191
USPQ at 96.
"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.
Precisely how close the original description must come to
comply with the § 112 written description requirement must be
determined on a case-by-case basis. See Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
The examiner (answer, page 6) argues that appellants’
specification does not provide support for the claimed device
because "the specification and original claim 18, taken
together, fail to fully describe the structural relationships
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007