Appeal No. 2000-0323 Page 7
Application No. 08/608,920
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1008 (1988). While
there is an inherent disclosure as to the basic geometry of
the elongated introducer sheath and the dilator as shown in
Figures 15-17, it is our view that such inherent geometry is
insufficient to necessarily suggest that the stiffness of the
elongated introducer sheath is less than the stiffness of the
dilator as set forth in the above-noted limitation from claim
15. In that regard, we note that a disclosure that merely
renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient
to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure
must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.
See Tronzo v. Biomet Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158-60, 47 USPQ2d
1829, 1832-34 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockwood v. American Airlines,
Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir.
1997); Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117;
In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 640, 188 USPQ 129, 131 (CCPA
1975); In re DiLeone, 436 F.2d 1404, 1405, 168 USPQ 592, 593
(CCPA 1971); In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937, 137 USPQ
336, 339 (CCPA 1963).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007