Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 11
Application No. 08/810,442
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.,
772 F.2d at 1575, 227 USPQ at 179 (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 F.2d 1247, 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)).
Here, claim 10 is not an original claim. To the contrary,
the appellant admits that “[c]laims 8-10 [were] added by . . .
[a]mendment.” (Paper No. 3 at 4.) Furthermore, he fails to show
that the original specification, which included the original
claims, disclosed the limitations we enumerated regarding the
non-enablement of claim 10. In the amendment, the appellant
alleged that support for the claim could be found on page 24 of
his specification in the “paragraphs before ‘Fourth Form of the
Invention.’” (Paper No. 3 at 5.) These paragraphs, however,
merely teach that “the only ports of entry for keys PK and SK are
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007