Appeal No. 1997-3090
Application 08/309,280
invented the processes including those limitations."
Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 citing In re Smythe,
480 F.2d 1376, 1382, 178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit points out that "[i]t is not
necessary that the claimed subject matter be described
identically, but the disclosure originally filed must convey
to those skilled in the art that applicant had invented the
subject matter later claimed." In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516,
1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 1209 (1985), citing In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375,
217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "To fulfill the written
description requirement, the patent specification 'must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."
Centry Gallery Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479, 45
USPQ 1498, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 1998) citing In re Gosteli, 872
F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "An
applicant is entitled to claims as broad as the prior art and
his disclosure will allow." In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007