Appeal No. 2002-0913
Application No. 09/107,643
Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1151 (1995); In re
Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA
1972).
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 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
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The content of
the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement. Id. Claim limitations
which are urged to be inherent in the disclosure must be shown as
having clear support from the necessary and only reasonable
construction to be given the disclosure by one skilled in the
art. Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int'l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419,
1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
486 U.S. 1008 (1988).
In addition, a disclosure that merely renders the later-
claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007