Appeal No. 2004-1305
Application No. 29/138,829
As correctly argued by appellant (Reply Brief, pages 1-2),
the examiner in the Answer requires a “microanalysis” of every
point of the drawings. “If a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood the inventor to have been in possession of
the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance
of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification,
then the written description requirement is met.” In re Alton,
76 F.3d at 1175, 37 USPQ2d at 1584.
We agree with appellant and the declarant that a designer of
ordinary skill in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) duct art, with knowledge of conventional technical drawing
practice, would have understood appellant to be in possession of
the claimed invention as described by Figures 1-3 (the first
embodiment) and Figures 4-6 (the second embodiment) at the time
of filing this application, as supported by the original figures
(Figure 1 as the first embodiment; Figure 2 as the second
embodiment). For example, declarant states that the original
application clearly describes the surfaces and profiles of the
shapes of the indented ends and gaskets in Figures 1 and 4, as
well as the number of concentric outlines shown in Figures 2 and
5 (Wagner Declaration, ¶¶ 7 and 8). We agree with declarant that
it would have been clear to the design artisan that three flanges
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007