Appeal No. 2001-2188
Application No. 09/085,300
from Appellant’s disclosure that in the disclosed ratio
relationship, the optimum gas intake orifice diameter can be
determined since it has the same relationship to the “optimum” or
target pump current as does the known value of measured pump
current to the known value of the selected gas intake orifice
diameter. “It is not necessary that the application describe the
claim limitations exactly, . . . but only so clearly that persons
of ordinary skill in the art will recognize from the disclosure
that appellants invented processes including those limitations.”
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 citing In re
Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points out that "[i]t is not
necessary that the claimed subject matter be described identical-
ly, but the disclosure originally filed must convey to those
skilled in the art that applicant had invented the subject matter
later claimed.” In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369,
372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1209 (1985), citing
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). In our opinion, under the factual situation presented in
the present case, Appellant has satisfied the statutory written
description requirement because he was clearly in possession of
the invention at the time of filing of the application.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007