Appeal No. 2004-1452
Application No. 29/138,830
issue of whether the original drawings provide support for the
amended drawings (e.g., see ¶¶ 7-11 in the Wagner Declaration).
As correctly argued by appellant (Reply Brief, pages 1-2),
the examiner in the Answer apparently requires a “microanalysis”
of every point of the drawings. However, our reviewing court has
held that “[i]f 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. Accordingly, applying this standard to
the facts of this appeal, we consider the design as a whole and
determine whether the preponderance of evidence reasonably
conveys to a designer of ordinary skill in the duct art that
appellant was in possession of the now claimed subject matter as
of the filing date.
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 reasonably understood appellant to be in
possession of the claimed invention as now described by Figures
1-4 (the first embodiment) and Figures 5-8 (the second
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007