Appeal No. 1999-0822 5
Application No. 08/732,866
1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467
(CCPA 1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
In accordance with the instant rejection, it is the examiner’s position that there is
no support in the specification for the limitation of the phrase, “suitable flexibility to be
laundered by an industrial washing machine.” See Answer, page 3. We find that
appellant discloses that the invention relates to launderable rubber backed floor mats.
See specification, page 1, lines 5-6. Moreover, the appellant has stated that, “floor mats
have conventionally consisted of a plurality of tufts in a primary backing adhered to a
vulcanized thermoset rubber backing. Such a backing gives dimensional stability to the
fabric surface while maintaining the mat’s integrity during industrial wash processing.”
See specification, page 2, lines 4-9.
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 inventor 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 appellant that the disclosure reasonably conveys to
one of ordinary skill in the art that appellant, did in fact disclose the advantage of a
launderable and accordingly reasonably flexible characteristic of a floor mat, and thus had
possession of the phrase “suitable flexibility” as recited in claim 1 on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007