Appeal No. 98-3225 5
Application No. 08/204,162
Moreover, our position is supported by the paragraph in the specification, page 2,
lines 9-18 which immediately precedes reference to “the polyether polyols.” The
paragraph describes “two polyols preferably of the polyether type, which are
incompatible with one another.” Thereafter, the next paragraph begins with the
statement that “[t]he polyether polyols.” In our view, “the” refers to the
abovementioned two incompatible polyols, each of which are properly characterized by a
hydroxyl number no greater than 100. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence
on the record before us supports our reading that each polyol has the requisite hydroxyl
number not greater than 100.
Ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The disclosure need only reasonably convey to those
of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the subject matter in
question. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1904 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). We agree with the appellants’ that the disclosure reasonably conveys to one
of ordinary skill in the art that appellants had possession of “said first and said second
polyols have hydroxyl numbers no greater than 100,” as recited in claim 6 on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007