Appeal No. 2006-1595
Application No. 09/798,484
among other things, by (1) describing an actual reduction to practice; (2) clearly
depicting the invention in detailed drawings; or (3) sufficiently describing relevant
and identifying characteristics of the invention. MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a). The
specification, however, need not describe in detail that which is conventional or
well known to skilled artisans. That is, the written description can be adequate
even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification
[id.]. See also Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d
1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover, software aspects of inventions may be
described functionally [see MPEP § 2106(V)(B)(1)].
In this case, we find that the specification adequately describes the
claimed invention with sufficient particularity that the skilled artisan would
reasonably conclude that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
Initially, we note that the text of claims 1-23 is expressly incorporated into the
specification.1 Although a verbatim correspondence between the claim language
and the specification is arguably dispositive of the issue of possession, we find
additional support in the specification for the claimed subject matter that
describes the invention with sufficient particularity to evidence possession. For
example, regarding the claimed limitation calling for the first logic identifying
hierarchy paths within the source code model, the specification states:
Once the C model has been loaded, a C model
builder function is called to build the C model
hierarchy, as indicated by block 22. During the
initialization phase of startup, the C model threads
1 See Amendment filed Mar. 28, 2005.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007