Ex Parte SCHRODER - Page 4


              Appeal No. 2000-2076                                                      Page 4                       
              Application No. 08/481,131                                                                                

              claimed subject matter at issue.  Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320,                     
              1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  Nor does the original disclosure have                       
              to contain a working example or embodiment illustrating the limitation at issue.  Rather,                 
              the test is whether applicants’ specification, as filed, reasonably conveys to the artisan                
              that the inventors had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.  Vas-                 
              Cath Inc. v Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USQP2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                         
              Any person skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must “immediately discern                 
              the limitation at issue” in the claims.  Waldemar Link GMBH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp.,                     
              32 F.3d 556, 558, 31 USPQ2d 1855, 1857 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  The inquiry is factual, and                     
              must be assessed on case-by-case basis.  See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 f.2d at                       
              1561, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.                                                                                  
                     We have carefully reviewed the declaration evidence in this case, including the                    
              Balinov Declaration executed July 3, 1998.3  According to Dr. Balinov, applicants’                        
              original disclosure describes spherical particles comprising a polymeric matrix enclosing                 
              a contrast agent, e.g., an ultrasound contrast agent.  In this regard, Dr. Balinov points to              
              original claim 4 describing a “contrast agent [which] reflects sound waves.”                              
                     The question is would any person skilled in the art have understood what would                     
              be an appropriate material for the ultrasound contrast agent described in the original                    
              disclosure?  Dr. Balinov answers that question in the affirmative, stating that:                          

                                                                                                                        
              3 The examiner has challenged Dr. Balinov’s qualifications (Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 30, page 10,     
              first complete sentence).  However, having reviewed the educational background and research               
              experience set forth at page 1 of the Balinov Declaration, we believe that Dr. Balinov is qualified to    
              interpret applicants’ specification, and that the Balinov Declaration is entitled to weight in this ex parte
              proceeding.                                                                                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007