the time of the earlier filing.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353-54, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, “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.
While the specifics of the cases concerning adequate written description vary, the cases agree
that the inquiry is factual and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, because of the
fact-sensitive nature of the written description inquiry, the Federal Circuit has advised against
misapplication of precedent in this area. See, Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
208 F.3d 989, 1000, 54 USPQ2d 1227, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and, In re Driscoll, 562 F.2d 1245,
1250, 195 USPQ 434, 438 (CCPA 1977).
The purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had
possession, as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter later claimed
by the inventor. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. The inventor
can demonstrate possession by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams,
formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. The inventor, however, needs to show that the
inventor was "in possession" of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations,
not that which makes it obvious. Thus, entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter
which is not disclosed, but would have been obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only
to that which is disclosed. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing
19
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007