Appeal No. 2002-2185
Application 08/976,361
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.
Further, 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).
In the examiner’s view (answer, page 4), there is no support
in the original disclosure for an opening in the spacer having a
“substantially unobstructed” flow area (independent claim 12) and
for the recitation that the “flow area” is substantially as large
as each opening in the spacer without the fuel rod received
therethrough (independent claims 12 and 25). The examiner notes
(answer, page 5) that appellants amended the specification at
pages 3 and 12 to provide support for the above respective
matters. Additionally, it is the examiner’s position that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007