both the end effector and the surgical instrument. Wang argues
that the claim recites two distinct items and that the one, e.g.
the end effector, is for holding the surgical instrument. Wang
concludes its argument by asserting that Green's specification
does not disclose an end effector for holding a surgical
instrument as required. While Green argues that no where in this
section does Wang mention the phrase "written description" (Paper
79 at 19-20), also absent from Wang's arguments, with the
exception of the.subtitle, is the phrase "lacking enablement."
As correctly pointed out by Green, the issue of written
description support and enablement are two distinct requirements
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1 1. Wang's substantive argument
regarding the end effector is based on written description
support and not on enablement. While we recognize that Wang's
subtitle may be misleading, to dismiss Wang's preliminary motion
because Wang failed to use the proper heading would put form over
substance. We do not think that such an outcome would lead to a
just determination in this interference. See 37 CFR § 1.601.
See also PfluQer v. Wertheim, 203 USPQ 874, 877 (Comm'r
1978)("(Plapers will betreated on the basis of their content,
rather than their titlý-.")
Furthermore, party Green itself addresses Wang's arguments
regarding lack of written description support. Specifically,
Green argues in its opposition:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007