Appeal No. 2003-1561 Page 4
Application No. 09/632,840
the presence or absence of literal support in the
specification for the claim language. The content of
the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement.
(citations omitted)
Although the claimed invention does not necessarily have to be
expressed in ipsis verbus in order to satisfy the written
description requirement (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265,
191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976)), the fact that one skilled in the
art might realize from reading a disclosure that something is
possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that the
something is a part of an appellants' disclosure (see In re
Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593, 194 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1977), cert.
denied, 434 U.S. 1064 (1978)). “One shows that one is ‘in
possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with
all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. . .
. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an
earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v.
American Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72, 41 USPQ2d 1961,
1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, we share the examiner’s view that there is no written
descriptive support in the original disclosure for the “at least
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007