Appeal No. 1999-0245
Application No. 08/720,268
Description
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8,
11, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing subject matter lacking description in
the specification.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of an
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to an artisan
that an inventor 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. The content
of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement. See Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Additionally, original claims constitute their
own description, with later added claims of similar scope and
wording being described thereby. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819,
823-24, 204 USPQ 702, 706 (CCPA 1980).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007