Appeal No. 1999-1651
Application No. 08/775,308
From our review of the specification, as originally filed, we note that no claim to
the instant claimed invention was filed and the original abstract did not include any
disclosure of the packaging embodiments, therefore it is merely the original
specification and drawings which must provide support for enablement. As discussed
above, we find that the invention as claimed would have been enabled by the language
of the claim alone due the nature of the claimed invention and that the language of the
claim is supported by the originally filed specification and Figure 23 which includes all of
the limitations as recited in the language of claim 41 with respect to the use of “at least
one” used in a number of limitations.
Appellants go on at length to show support for each of the recited claim
limitations in the brief at pages 6-13. We agree with appellants that there is support for
the limitations as claimed. Appellants argue that the written disclosure and the
drawings must be taken as a whole to determine if appellants had possession of the
invention at the time of filing. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants.
Appellants further argue that multiple embodiments may be relied upon in combination
to provide support for the invention as claimed with respect to written description
requirement. We agree with appellants, but note that the reliance upon multiple
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007