Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the
inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil of California v. Atlantic
Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997, 54 USPQ2d 1227, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1119; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d
1008,1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349,
1351-52, 196 USPQ 465, 467 (CCPA 1978).
Here, we agree with the appellants that the specification provides written
descriptive support for a sample holder having a multiplicity of non-removable islands.
To that end, we direct attention to the specification description of making the sample
holder by etching the sumps by “[b]oth isotropic and anisotropic methods.”
Specification, p. 14, lines 4-8. The specification discloses that a pattern is etched or cut
away resulting in a three-dimensional structure. Id., lines 14-16. The specification
further discloses that with anisotropic etching, for example, a sample holder must have
a crystalline substrate (id., lines 18-20) and that the etching procedure creates “deep,
vertical, narrow channels” (id., line 8). In our view, one skilled in the art would
understand that the etching of a crystalline substrate to create channels in a manner
which results in a multiplicity of islands would produce a sample holder wherein the
resultant islands and the crystalline substrate remain as a single integral unit. The
islands being an integral part of the substrate would be non-removable.
In addition, we point out that the specification further discloses in reference to the
figures (see, e.g., Figure 4) that the “islands 14 may be fabricated independently and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007