Ex Parte Pitts et al - Page 8

                 Appeal 2007-0417                                                                                       
                 Application 10/796,814                                                                                 
                 devoid of any merit.   As explained by our reviewing court in Vas-Cath, Inc.                           
                 v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1991):                               
                        The CCPA also recognized a subtle distinction between a                                         
                        written description adequate to support a claim under § 112 and                                 
                        a written description sufficient to anticipate its subject matter                               
                        under § 102(b).   The difference between “claim-supporting                                      
                        disclosures” and “claim-anticipating disclosures” was                                           
                        dispositive in In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 793                                         
                        (CCPA 1971), where the court held that a U.S. “grandparent”                                     
                        application did not sufficiently describe the later-claimed                                     
                        invention, but that the appellant’s intervening British                                         
                        application, a counterpart to the U.S. application, anticipated                                 
                        the claimed subject matter.  As the court pointed out, “the                                     
                        description of a single embodiment of broadly claimed subject                                   
                        matter constitutes a description of the invention for anticipation                              
                        purposes…, whereas the same information in a specification                                      
                        might not alone be enough to provide a description of that                                      
                        invention for purposes of adequate disclosures…. ”                                              
                 Consistent with the holding of Lukach, our reviewing court in In re Chu,                               
                 66 F.3d 292, 297, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 1995) held that an                                   
                 applicant’s parent application was available as prior art against the claims of                        
                 its child application.                                                                                 
                        The Appellants contend that “the selective application by the                                   
                 Examiner of ‘inherent disclosure’ to find anticipation yet deny priority has                           
                 no basis in patent law” (Br. 5).  This contention, however, is incorrect in the                        
                 context of the present circumstance.  As indicated supra, the Appellants                               
                 have not demonstrated that “there has been [a] ‘continuing disclosure [of the                          
                 claimed subject matter] through the chain of applications, without hiatus’” as                         
                 required by Lemelson, supra and “a specific reference” to all the                                      
                 applications in the chain, including Pitts, in the present application as                              
                 required by Sticker Indus. Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co., supra.                                       

                                                           8                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013