Appeal No. 2006-0151 Page 4
Application No. 09/753,381
“exogenous enzyme is reduced by up to about 50% without a reduction in degradation of
neutral detergent fiber” (claim 13)), are not supported by the examples because the
examples “pertain to specific surfactant preparations” (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of
the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims[,] does not overreach the scope of the
inventor’s contribution to the field as far as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin
v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To
satisfy the requirement, the specification need not contain the identical words used in the
claims. See Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d
1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, the specification must “convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [applicant] was in
possession [of] . . . whatever is now claimed.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1564, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
After carefully reviewing the specification, we are persuaded that it reasonably
conveys possession of the claimed invention, including the open-ended recitations “at
least 5% by weight of lysophospholipids” (all claims), “at least about 50%” (claim 10),
and “up to about 50%” (claim 13), to one of skill in the art.
The specification teaches that “lecithin and/or lysolecithin [surfactants] . . .
improve the activity of [exogenous] enzymes . . . in breaking down animal feeds or
animal feed ingredients to increase the nutrients available to the animal” (Specification,
page 2), and “a reduction of up to 50% of the enzymes used in the feed can be made
without a degradation in the desired effect of the enzymes” when “lysophospholipid/
phospholipids-type [ ] surfactants are used” (id., page 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007