USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570, 39 USPQ2d
1895, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Rather, if the written description does not use precisely the same
terms used in a claim, the question then is whether the specification directs or guides one skilled
in the art to the subject matter claimed such that the specification reasonably conveys to those
skilled in the art that the inventor invented what is claimed. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin,
93 F.3d 1559, 1570, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
While the specifics of the cases concerning adequate written description vary, the cases
agree that the inquiry is factual and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. See, Union Oil
Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000, 54 USPQ2d 1227, 1235 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
1991). Accordingly, we have reviewed the Kumar ‘485 application and its prosecution history in
light of the facts before us.
The Kumar ‘958 application was filed on June 5, 1995 with claims 1-58. The Kumar
‘958 application states that the “present invention relates to cosmetic compositions containing a
vinyl-silicone graft or block copolymer.” (Kumar ‘958, p. 1, lines 9-11). According to Kumar
‘958, the copolymer used in the invention is represented by the following formula (A):
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007