Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, the
materiality of the limitation is simply irrelevant to the written description requirement.
In this regard, we note that Engvall chose to file an amendment copying claims from the David
patent in order to provoke this interference. However, there is no need to copy claims exactly to
provoke an interference. An applicant only needs to have patentable claims in the application which
are (1) clearly supported by the specification (37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1)) and (2) are directed to the “same
patentable invention” as claimed by the patentee (37 CFR §§ 1.601(i) & (n) (1986)). An interference
can exist even where the scope of the claims of the parties do not overlap. See Aelony v. Arni, 547
F.2d 566, 570, 192 USPQ 486, 489-90 (CCPA 1977) (a method for purifying a compound using
cyclopentadiene held to be the same patentable invention as a method using butadiene, isoprene,
dimethylbutadiene, piperylene, anthracene, perylene, furan and sorbic acid).
2. Precedent
The general test for determining whether later claimed subject matter is supported by an
earlier written description is whether the disclosure of the application "reasonably conveys to a person
skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the
earlier filing date." Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1995); Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc, 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The
specification must provide information that clearly allows persons having ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that the applicant invented the later claimed subject matter. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). In Vas-Cath the court noted that the disclosure must "convey with reasonable clarity to
those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the applicant] was in possession of the
invention." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117. (Emphasis original.) The court
went on to state that the "invention is, for the purpose of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever
is now claimed." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1564, 19 USPQ2d at 1117. (Emphasis original).
The Federal Circuit has analogized the determination of whether there is written descriptive
support in a specification to following a trail through the forest by looking for “blaze marks” on
individual trees:
14
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007