Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, is
reversed.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1
The examiner states that the “newly added ‘wherein ...
product’ limitation to claim 1c is not supported by the
original specification.” Answer, page 3. Appellants submit
that there is implicit basis or support for this phrase when
steps (c) and (d) of claim 1 are read together (Brief, pages
9-11).
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 at the time of filing. See In re
Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA
1978). We agree with appellants that there is implicit basis
or support for the phrase “wherein the weakly adsorbing purge
fluid is a fluid other than the less adsorbable product” since
the weakly adsorbing fluid could not be purged as required by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007