Appeal No. 2002-0978
Application 09/535,065
which appellant regards as the invention. According to the
examiner, claim 12 appears to claim two separate movable jaws.
Therefore, the claim is ambiguous. The examiner further states
that there is no antecedent basis for “the wedge-shaped movable
jaw” in claims 21 and 22. The examiner is of the view that claim
22 is directed to some type of kit with interchangeable jaws.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims on appeal in light of
the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a result of
this review, we have reached the conclusion that the claims do
not lack written descriptive support and are not indefinite.
Accordingly, the rejections on appeal are reversed. Our reasons
follow.
Whether a specification complies with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and
Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998)(citing Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent
specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007