Appeal No. 1999-0678
Application No. 08/462,691
As the court stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375,
217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983):
The test for determining compliance with the
written description requirement is whether the
disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had
possession at that time of the later claimed subject
matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal
support in the specification for the claim language.
The content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description
requirement. [Citations omitted.]
Although the application as originally filed does not describe
the phrase in question in ipsis verbus, we agree with appellants
that it reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventors had
possession of such subject matter for the reasons set forth at
pages 5 through 8 of the Brief. Thus, we reverse the examiner’s
§ 112 rejection of claims 18 through 35.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 18 through 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over various combinations of Meredith, Sundman,
Soteland, Reeve, Kimura, Coste, and Backlund.
The presently claimed subject matter is related to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007