Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
Description
We sustain the rejection of claims 6 through 10, 16, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking descriptive
support in the original disclosure, but we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 19 on this same ground.
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 See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Like the examiner (answer, page 5), it is quite clear to
this panel of the Board that the underlying original disclosure
does not descriptively support the language "at least" added to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007