Ex Parte Pounds et al - Page 6

               Appeal 2007-1941                                                                             
               Application 10/363,159                                                                       
           1   of a rubberized compound and an ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid co-                     
           2   polymer. . . .”  (Emphasis added.).  But the disclosure of a generic invention               
           3   does not necessarily provide an implicit description of every subgenus or                    
           4   embodiment within the genus.  Smith, 458 F2d at 1395, 173 USPQ at 683.                       
           5          The only parts of the written description relating to a repair                        
           6   composition including asphalt is in the discussion of the prior art                          
           7   compositions and methods in the “Background” (Spec. p. 3, l. 31 - p. 4, l.                   
           8   29) and at the end of the written description where applicant touts the                      
           9   benefits of the invention (Spec. p. 21, l. 1 - p. 23, l. 15).  The discussion of             
          10   the prior art is manifestly not applicant’s invention.  The discussion of the                
          11   benefits of the invention, while indicating that the invention is useful in                  
          12   repairing asphalt, does not describe the use of asphalt as part of the repair                
          13   composition in addition to the copolymer and the rubberized compound.                        
          14          Applicant identifies six preferred embodiments in the written                         
          15   description which are said to “satisfy the limitation of being [sic] ‘not being              
          16   predominantly asphalt.”  Appeal Brief filed August 8, 2006, p. 6.  We                        
          17   understand this argument to be that the limitation reads on the six                          
          18   embodiments and therefore supports the limitation.  However, none of these                   
          19   embodiments include asphalt.  It is of course correct that the phrase “not                   
          20   predominately asphalt” reads on compositions without any asphalt and                         
          21   includes applicant’s six preferred embodiments.  However, the fact that the                  
          22   phrase reads on the examples does not mean that the limitation is described.                 
          23   A generic claim necessarily “reads on” every subgenus or species                             
          24   encompassed by the genus.  However, the genus does not necessarily                           
          25   describe the subgenus in the sense of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.  Smith, 458 F.2d                 
          26   at 1395, 173 USPQ at 683.  There is nothing in the six embodiments which                     
          27   provide blazemarks to guide one skilled in the art to incorporate asphalt in                 

                                                    - 6 -                                                   

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013