Appeal No. 1999-2665
Application No. 08/826,816
Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Additionally, “under proper
circumstances, drawings alone may provide a ‘written
description’ of an invention as required by § 112.” Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
Based on these well established principles, and the
examiner’s express admission that the rib feature of claims
48-50 is clearly shown in appellants’ drawing figures, the
examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claims 48-50 as being based on a written description that
fails to provide descriptive support for the invention as now
claimed is inappropriate and will not be sustained. The
examiner may, however, wish to have appellants amend the
specification to incorporate the terminology of claims 48-50
therein in order to bring the specification and claims into
compliance with 37 CFR
§ 1.75(d)(1).1
1See 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). 37 CFR
§ 1.75(d)(1) reads as follows:
The claim or claims must conform to the invention as
set forth in the remainder of the specification and
the terms and phrases used in the claims must find
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007