Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 8
is “the perpendicular direction between the bottom surface of the
transparent covering and the light receiving element 15." We
agree. In order to satisfy the written description requirement,
the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in
haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue. See
Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570, 30 USPQ2d 1895, 1904
(Fed. Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, the disclosure “must ... convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that ... [the
inventor] was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991). From the language in the specification (pages 10 and 11)
that “the optical path from the original document W to the light
receiving element 15 will be called a focal length H from the top
of the transparent covering 11 to the light receiving element 15”
we find that a skilled artisan would immediately discern that the
light receiving axis is the optical path from the document to the
light receiving element. Accordingly, the objection of the
specification and rejection of claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23, and
25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-5, 12-15, 20-23,
and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. Claims are considered to be definite, as required by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007