Appeal No. 1999-2141 Application No. 08/657,164 Cir. 1995). Thus, as stated above, all that is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to convey to those skilled in the art, that, as of the filing date the applicant’s were in possession of the invention. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Makurar, supra. Appellant argues that the invention as now claimed is supported by the specification at pages 4-5. The specification page 5, line 5 appears to indicate that the fraction 6 obtained by HPLC can be used in the form obtained directly as a cell growth promoter or subjected to further purification. Thus, the specification would appear to support purification of the protein in a single HPLC pass. The specification would reasonably appear to convey to those skilled in the art, that, as of the filing date, the applicant’s were in possession of the invention. The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph is reversed. CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). REVERSED 13Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007