Appeal No. 2006-1746
Application No. 10/375,679
6. In the various embodiments described above, the display comprises
an integral part of the nerve stimulator needle. In other embodiments,
however, the display may be separate from the nerve stimulator
needle and also remote from the nerve stimulator 10
(Specification 7).
We additionally make the following Findings Of Fact from the drawings:
7. The embodiment of Fig. 1 shows the nerve stimulator apparatus to
include hand-graspable hub 11, having display 14 and optional multi-position
switch 15.
8. Fig. 2 shows hub 11 to include a display or displays 24.
9. Figure 6 shows an alternate embodiment that includes hub 11, but does
not illustrate hub 11 to have an indicator or optional switch 15.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The written description requirement serves "to ensure that the inventor had
possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject
matter later claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not
material." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976). In
order to meet the written description requirement, the appellant does not have to
utilize any particular form of disclosure to describe the subject matter claimed, but
"the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize
that [he or she] invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10
USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way, "the applicant must . . .
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013