Appeal No. 2001-0688
Application No. 08/689,721 Page 4
have made but chose not to make in the brief and supplemental
brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellant's arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse, and
remand the application to the examiner.
We note at the outset that the written description
requirement serves to ensure that the inventor had possession, as
of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific
subject matter later claimed; how the specification accomplishes
this is not material. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191
USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). "The applicant must . . . convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the
filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007