Appeal No. 2001-1418
Application 08/022,822
and in the chamber” (claim 51). Although the foregoing claim
language does not have literal support in the underlying
specification,one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated the above noted portions of the specification as
being descriptive of, and enabling with respect to, a heat
exchange structure having the undulating wall defined in claim 39
and the undulating line and chamber defined in claim 51.2
As for the written description requirement, the test is
whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had
possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter,
rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the
specification for the claim language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For the reasons discussed above in conjunction with the
enablement issue, the disclosure of the appellant’s application
as originally filed would reasonably convey to the artisan that
the appellant had possession at that time of the subject matter
2 The appellant is advised, however, that 37 CFR
§ 1.75(d)(1) requires in pertinent part that “the terms and
phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent
basis in the description.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007