Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
the disclosure originally filed must convey to those skilled in
the art that the applicant had invented the subject matter later
claimed. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369,
372 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In addition, we note that our Court of
review has also informed us that the drawings included in the
application may aid in the interpretation of claim limitations,
in that “drawings alone may provide a 'written description' of an
invention as required by § 112.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1556, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, in
those instances where a visual representation can flesh out
words, drawings can and should be used like the written
specification to provide evidence relevant to claim
interpretation and used to interpret what the inventor(s)
intended by the claim terms.
Applying those precepts to the present application, we find
ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the language added
to claim 1 in the amendment filed October 28, 2002 (Paper No. 13)
concerning the adapter block being “structurally removable from
the laboratory magnetic stirrer without removing a fastener”
finds no support in the application disclosure as originally
filed. Even though we have looked to both the discussion in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007