Appeal No. 2007-0379 Page 8
Application No. 10/045,301
In our opinion, page 6, lines 8-12 of appellant’s specification clearly
explains that equipment designed to have a water source integrated (e.g., in the
same cabinet) with a host system has both manufacturing and maintenance
advantages over a system wherein these components are not integrated, e.g, are
separated into separate cabinets. As to claim 20, the examiner recognizes that
“logic and common-sense tell that units in proximity could be housed in a single
cabinet, and remote units require separate cabinets (as argued by the appellant).
. . .” Answer, page 10. We agree.
The written description is determined from the perspective of what the
specification conveys to one skilled in the art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, the
specification need not always spell out every detail; only enough “to convince a
person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention and to enable
such a person to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.”
LizardTech, Inc., v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345,
76 USPQ2d 1724, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
On reflection, it is our opinion, appellant’s specification provides a
description of the invention that would convince a person of ordinary skill in the
art the invention possessed the claimed invention. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 11-15,and 18-31 under the written description provision
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013