Interference No. 103,029
must meet the enablement requirement. Hyatt v. Boone, 146
F.3d 1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999), quoting Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d
1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(section 112
paragraph 1 must be met by the earlier application). For an
earlier-filed application to serve as constructive reduction
to practice of the subject matter of an interference count,
the applicant must describe the subject matter of the count in
terms that establish that he was in possession of the
later-claimed invention, including all of the elements and
limitations presented in the count, at the time of the earlier
filing. Hyatt, 146 F.3d at 1353, 47 USPQ2d at 1131. When an
explicit limitation in an interference count is not present
in the written description whose benefit is sought, it must be
shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood,
at the time the patent application was filed, that the
description requires that limitation. Id. It is insufficient
as written description, for purposes of establishing priority
of invention, to provide a specification that does not
unambiguously describe all limitations of the count. Id.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007