Interference No. 103,036
Reynolds, 443 F.2d 384, 389, 170 USPQ 94, 98, the court resolved
an issue of inherent disclosure in an analogous case ("means for
preventing an abrupt change in the capacitance . . .") in favor
of an applicant by the disclosure of the drawing and the
knowledge that "a person skilled in the art would suspect that
there was some reason for the relationships shown in the drawing
and would not regard such disclosure as accidental or arbitrary."
The Reynolds court also quoted with approval from Technicon
Instruments Corp. v. Coleman Instruments, Inc., 255 F.Supp. 630,
150 USPQ 227 (N.D. Ill. 1966), aff'd 385 F.2d 391, 155 USPQ 369
(7th Cir. 1967):
By disclosing in a patent application a device
that inherently performs a function, operates
according to a theory, or has an advantage, a patent
applicant necessarily discloses that function, theory
or advantage even though he says nothing concerning
it.
In In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384-85, 178 USPQ 279, 285-86
(CCPA 1973), the court stated that the forgoing principle applies
to the description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
It is also urged by the party Tucholski that even if
the nonconductive layer disclosed by Burroughs et al.
specification is a polymer layer, it would not be sufficiently
-61-
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007