Appeal No. 2003-1475
Application No. 09/352,250
Description issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 16 and 19 were added to the application subsequent to
the filing thereof.2
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
2 The description in the specification should comport with
the language of claims 16 and 19, as required by 37 CFR
1.75(d)(1). This matter should be addressed following this
decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007