Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
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 Appellant was clearly in possession of the
invention at the time of filing of the application.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13-19 and
21 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning to a consideration of the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 13-19 and 21, we note that the
general rule is that a claim must set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity when read in light of the disclosure as it would
be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of the claim language
depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed in light of the specification.
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007