KIPOURAS et al. V. BARNHOUSE et al. - Page 13

          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.                   


Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007