Interference No. 103,029 The written description requirement is a fact- specific issue. See, e.g., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976)("The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure"); and Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir 1991). As with all preliminary motions, the burden is on the moving party--in this instance Kipouras--to prove entitlement to benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. See Behr v. Talbott, 27 USPQ2d 1401, 1405 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992); Kubota v. Shibuya, 999 F.2d 517, 522, 27 USPQ2d 1418, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Kipouras has moved for benefit of the filing date of the Federl Patent No. 4,588,773. The question presented is whether one of ordinary skill would have understood that the specific embodiment examples of columns 4 and 5 of the patent are embodiments within the scope of the count in this 14Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007