Appeal No. 2002-0185
Application 08/902,171
In In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir.
1983), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, and
quoted the Board’s statement of the law with approval:
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of
the application as originally filed reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the 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.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 1375, 217 USPQ at 1096
(citation omitted).
Also, an ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy
the written description requirement of section 112. The
disclosure need only reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the inventors had possession of the subject
matter in question. See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52,
196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978).
Here, the examiner states that the phrase “which are not
reinforced with an additional strip of material”, of claim 1, is
new matter because this negative limitation, i.e., concept of
exclusion, is not expressly supported by the specification.
Appellants argue that their figures show the bonded seam
structure is not reinforced with an additional strip of material.
(brief, page 3).
Upon our review of the specification, although there is no
express language such as “which are not reinforced with an
additional strip of material”, we agree with appellants that the
figures show that their invention includes a bonded seam
structure that is not reinforced with an additional strip of
material even if the figures depict a preferred embodiment, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007