Appeal No. 2002-0913
Application No. 09/107,643
description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed
invention with all its limitations. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
156 F.3d 1154, 1158-60, 47 USPQ2d 1829, 1832-34 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1656, 1571-72,
41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re DiLeone, 436 F.2d 1404, 1405, 168 USPQ 592, 593
(CCPA 1971); In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937, 137 USPQ 336,
339 (CCPA 1963). Although it may be apparent that the particular
later claimed construction could be utilized for an article of
manufacture, that does not mean that such a construction is
described as part of the invention. That a person skilled in the
art might realize from reading a disclosure that a particular
later claimed construction is possible is not a sufficient
indication to that person that said construction is part of
invention. See In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 640, 188 USPQ 129,
131 (CCPA 1975).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007