Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 4
Application No. 09/282,320
at 1116 (quoting Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618). "[T]he test for
sufficiency of support . . . is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
'reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter.'" Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570,
1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375,
217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "Application sufficiency under §112, first
paragraph, must be judged as of the filing date [of the application]." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d
at 1566, 19 USPQ2d at 1119 (citing United States Steel Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
865 F.2d 1247, 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Because "[t]he
applicant is in the best position to explain his invention," Hyatt v. Dudas, No. 03-108
(EGS), slip op. at 26 (D.D.C. 2005), moreover, the "[a]pplicant should . . . specifically
point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure." M.P.E.P.
§ 2163.06.
Here, neither the limitation that the mirror of independent claims 1, 11, and 15 is
"movably arranged at an angle to the camera" nor the limitation that the mirror of
independent claims 1, 11, 15, and 18 features "a field of view" (emphasis added)
appeared in the original claims. The former limitation was added by an amendment
filed on October 23, 2002, (Paper No. 15 at 1); the latter limitation was added by an
amendment filed on November 3, 2003. (Paper No. 24 at 2.) In the earlier amendment,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007