Appeal No. 2000-0182 Page 10
Application No. 08/831,327
original disclosure, one skilled in the art would understand 2 the
term "spiral" as used in the original disclosure to mean "a
three-dimensional curve that turns around an axis at a constant
or continuously varying distance while moving parallel to the
axis; a helix."3 Thus, it is our view that there is no inherent
disclosure in the application to suggest the above-noted
limitations from claim 1. 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
2 In proceedings before it, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to the verbiage of the claims
before it the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by
way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the appellant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
3 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007