Ex Parte Pounds et al - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-1941                                                                             
               Application 10/363,159                                                                       
           1   description requirement, the patent specification must describe an invention                 
           2   in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the               
           3   inventor invented what is claimed.  Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d                 
           4   1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997);  In re Gosteli, 872                       
           5   F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The disclosure as                    
           6   originally filed does not, however, have to provide a description in the                     
           7   identical words to support subject matter now claimed. Cordis Corp. v.                       
           8   Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1876, 1885 (Fed.                         
           9   Cir. 2003) (“The disclosure as originally filed does not … have to provide in                
          10   haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”).  If the written               
          11   description does not use precisely the same terms used in a claim, the                       
          12   written description must direct or guide one skilled in the art to the subject               
          13   matter claimed.  Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570, 39 USPQ2d                       
          14   1895, 1904 (Fed.Cir. 1996).  In other words, there must be blazemarks in the                 
          15   original disclosure directing the skilled artisan to the subject matter now                  
          16   claimed. Fujikawa, 93 F.3d at 1570-71, 39 USPQ2d at 1905; In re Ruschig,                     
          17   379 F.2d 990, 994-95, 154 USPQ 118, 122 (CCPA 1967).  The disclosure of                      
          18   a genus does not necessarily implicitly describe every subgenus                              
          19   encompassed by that genus.  In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ                       
          20   679, 683 (CCPA 1972).                                                                        
          21          The Office “bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a prima facie                
          22   case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d                      
          23   1443, 1444 (Fed.Cir. 1992).  With respect to the written description, that                   
          24   burden is discharged by “presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled                  
          25   in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention              
          26   defined by the claims.”  In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90,                     
          27   97 (CCPA 1976).                                                                              

                                                    - 4 -                                                   

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013