Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 7
Application No. 08/839,843
The next inquiry is whether the subject matter is supported
by the written description of Biery. "’Although [the applicant]
does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed,
. . . the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary
skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is
claimed.’" Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19
USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(quoting In re Gosteli, 872
F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). "[T]he
test for sufficiency of support . . . is whether the disclosure
of the application relied upon 'reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter.'" Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co,
Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir.
1985)(quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Application sufficiency under §112,
first paragraph, must be judged as of the filing date [of the
application].” Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1566, 19 USPQ2d at 1119
(citing United States Steel Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 865
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007