Appeal 2006-2870
Application 10/401,509
ISSUE
The sole issue to be decided on appeal is whether the Examiner erred
in finding that Appellants’ disclosure does not comply with the “written
description” requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
"[C]ompliance with the 'written description' requirement of '112 is a
question of fact. . . ." Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19
USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008,
1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d
993, 998, 6 USPQ2d 1709, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). "[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, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1566, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(citing United States Steel Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 865 F.2d 1247,
1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
DISCUSSION
According to the Examiner (Answer 3), Appellants’ original
disclosure lacks a description of the method for controlling the alignment of
layers as set forth in independent claim 29, the sole independent claim on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013