Appeal No. 2005-1013
Application 09/767,155
F.2d 1366, 1376, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and Vas-
Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111,
1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, we note that it is not
necessary that the claimed subject matter under consideration be
described identically in the specification, but the disclosure as
originally filed must convey in some way to those skilled in the
art that the applicants had at the time of filing invented the
subject matter now claimed. See, In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516,
1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Gosteli, 872
F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In the present case, the examiner has found that the
recitation noted above as being added to claim 1, lines 2-3, is
without support in the originally filed specification and claims.
Like the examiner, we find nothing in the specification, claims
and/or drawings of this application, as originally filed, that
would have reasonably conveyed to the artisan that the inventors
had possession of the now claimed subject matter at the time of
filing the present application. Appellants’ comments on pages 10-
11 of the brief (Paper No. 14) concerning this rejection point to
nothing in the original disclosure which reasonably evidences
that appellants were specifically concerned with a cylindrical
beverage container having an easy opening lid wherein the lid
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007