Appeal No. 2004-0191 Page 4
Application No. 09/072,241
of the device as explained on page 5 of the specification as originally filed provides
support for the disputed term because it makes it clear that extension of the power unit
14 causes stabilizer arm 17 to force arm 13 forward at the outset of the lifting operation
and thus the load support begins a horizontal movement at that point which continues
until the lifting step is terminated.
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. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It is apparent to us that, with reference to page 5 of the specification and Figures
1 and 3, link 25 is caused to pivot from the position shown in Figure 1 at the outset of
the lifting operation to that of Figure 3, wherein the lifting is terminated. As link 25
pivots, ends 21 of the loader arms, to which the load support is attached, begin an
arcuate movement which has a forward component throughout the entire lifting
operation. Thus, while this feature might not have been disclosed in the specification in
the terminology now present in the claims, it is our view that the disputed phraseology
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007