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. 13Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007