Appeal No. 1998-1077 Page 5
Application No. 08/458,999
With regard to written descriptive support, all that is
required is that appellants’ specification reasonably convey
to one of ordinary skill in the art that as of the filing date
of the application, appellants were in possession of the
presently claimed invention; how the specification
accomplishes this is not material. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-352,
196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). Concerning this matter, it
is not necessary that the application describes the presently
claimed invention exactly, but only sufficiently clearly that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the
disclosure that appellants invented it. See Edwards, 568 F.2d
at 1351-352, 196 USPQ at 467; Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191
USPQ at 96.
"[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or
reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in
the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the
claims." Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97.
Precisely how close the original description must come to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007