Appeal No. 2001-2021
Application No. 09/206,393
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d
1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For the sake of completeness, we
shall review the rejection as if it were predicated on both.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventors 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).
A review of the originally filed disclosure in the
instant application shows that it provides support throughout
for the joy stick limitations recited in the appealed claims.
Thus, it is not evident why this disclosure would not
reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellants had
possession at that time of the subject matter now recited in
these claims.
Insofar as the enablement requirement is concerned, the
dispositive issue is whether the appellants’ disclosure,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007