Appeal No. 2002-1019
Application 09/433,570
art [how] to make and/or use the invention” (final rejection,
page 4).
With regard to the written description requirement, the test
is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed
reasonably conveys to the artisan that the appellants 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). The content of
the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement. Id.
The limitations in claims 1, 9 and 16 relating the anchor to
the left armpit of a right handed golfer or to the right armpit
of a left handed golfer find support in the paragraph bridging
pages 5 and 6 in the original specification and in original
drawing Figures 5a, 5b and 17. The paragraph bridging
specification pages 5 and 6 associates the anchor 26 with the
armpit of the golfer’s forward arm, and Figures 5a, 5b and 17
illustrate a right handed golfer in a right handed stance with
the anchor fitting against the left (forward) armpit. It stands
to reason and inherently follows that in a putting aid/brace
member designed for a left handed golfer, the anchor would fit
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007