Appeal No. 2004-0864
Application No. 09/850,924
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description)
rejection
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that claim 8,
as amended, requires a zone, a newly defined zone, not described
in the specification or shown in the drawings. Answer, page 4.
We initially note that the Federal Circuit has held that
adequate written description support for an applicant’s claim
limitation exists even though it was not set forth “in haec
verba” in the specification. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9
USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Also, there is no
requirement under Section 112 that the subject matter of a claim
be described literally in the disclosure. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d
967, 969, 169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The disclosure need
only reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that
the inventors had possession of the subject matter in question.
See In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467
(CCPA 1978). With this in mind, we provide the following
determination.
Figure 1 depicts when the mounting frame is in the working
position, and Figure 2 depicts when the mounting frame is in the
non-working position.
Claim 8, as amended, recites that the mounting frame 30 and
conveying arrangement 32 are constructed and arranged relative to
each and the windrower, such that the conveying arrangement 32 is
located within a zone bounded at a front side by ground wheels
16, and bounded at a rear side by a rear portion of the mounting
frame 30, when the mounting frame 30 is in said working position
[emphasis added], as depicted in Figure 1.
The conveying arrangement 32 is located no further rearward
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007