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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007