Interference 103,482
monomer units. Thus, we found that the evidence submitted in
this interference as a whole supported a more limited
interpretation of Dolle’s claim language.
The description requirement of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 cannot be satisfied by the mere possibility
that a process for polymerizing olefins which is generically
described in Ewen et al., U.S. Patent 4,892,851, for
production of syndiotactic polymers, and may employ any one of
a generically described group of metallocene compounds
including metallocenes of formula I of Count 2, might
inherently produce a syndio-isoblock polymer having molecular
chains in which syndiotactic and isotactic sequences are
present and the sequence length is 3 to 50 monomer units,
especially given our interpretation of the meaning of the
terms and phrases Dolle uses in his claims to define a syndio-
isoblock polymer. As said in Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915,
918, 175 USPQ 172, 174 (CCPA 1972):
To prove inherency, the burden is on appellants to
show that the “necessary and only reasonable construction
to be given the disclosure by one skilled in the art
is one which will lend clear support to each positive
limitation . . . .” Binstead v. Littman, 242 F.2d 766,
770, [113 USPQ 279, 282] 44 CCPA 839, 844(1957).
Accord Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419,
1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Snitzer v. Etzel,
116
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007