Appeal No. 2004-1756 Page 3
Application No. 09/880,882
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain either of
these rejections.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, an
applicant’s original disclosure must convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that the applicant, as of the
filing date sought, was in possession of the claimed invention.
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d
1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Further, the drawings alone of
an applicant’s original disclosure may, under proper
circumstances, satisfy the written description requirement. Vas-
Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118.
We fully agree with the appellant that figures 2A and 2B of
his drawing provide written description support for the claim 1
term “linearly”. This is because these figures reasonably depict
the two planar lower faces 20A and 20B as extending “linearly”,
that is, in a straight line. In support of his opposing view,
the examiner points out that appellant’s “drawings are not to
scale” (Answer, page 3). However, this point, though relevant to
issues of dimension such as length, is simply irrelevant to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007