Appeal No. 2002-2009
Application 09/843,631
characteristics of the invention to the disclosure and claims.
Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1422,
5 USPQ2d 1194, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1008
(1988). An invention claimed need not be described in ipsis
verbis in order to satisfy the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967,
969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The question is not whether
an added word was the word used in the specification as filed,
but whether there is support in a specification for the
employment of the word in the claims, that is, whether the
concept is present in the original disclosure. See In re
Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ 311, 336 (CCPA 1973).
The examiner's concerns focus upon the disputed language
noted earlier at the end of each of the respective independent
claims concerning the "other than the substantially constant
flying height" feature of independent claims 47, 63, 64 and 65 as
well as the "predetermined flying height" feature of independent
claims 66 and 67. According to the embodiment shown in Figure 5,
the resolution acceptability determination of the claims is made
by a comparison to a threshold resolution value stored for
example in memory. These stored threshold resolution values
represent the resolution of the read signal at the maximum head
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007