Appeal No. 2002-2009
Application 09/843,631
a manner as to reasonably convey to the artisan that the
inventors, at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs for the positions of
the appellants, and to the final rejection and answer for the
examiner's positions.
OPINION
We reverse.
The examiner's view that the appellants did not have
possession of the presently claimed invention is based upon the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. The manner in which the specification as filed meets
the written description requirement is not material. The
requirement may be met by either an express or an implicit
disclosure. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96
(CCPA 1976). It is permissible to add inherent properties or
1 Since the examiner has acknowledged at the top of page 5
of the answer that there is no rejection made between the so-
called conflicting claims of the present application and another
application, we have no jurisdiction before us to render any
opinion on such a potential conflict.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007