Appeal No. 2002-1622 Page 8
Application No. 08/735,836
that the mixture may contain any ratio of polymer (a) to polymer (b) as necessary and
appropriate to achieve the desired properties and characteristics.” (Brief at 6).
Appellants are basically arguing that the absence of any discussion of ranges is
equivalent to saying that all ranges are described. We do not agree. The specification fails to
even state that all ranges are encompassed. Nor do Appellants give any indication that any
particular amounts are a part of their invention. “While the meaning of terms, phrases, or
diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in
the art, all limitations must appear in the specification.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
107 F.3d 1565, 1571, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We note the statutory
requirement: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 1(1998)(emphasis added). One skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must
reasonably 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). If the written description does not use precisely
the same terms used in a claim, the question then is whether the specification directs or guides
one skilled in the art to the subject matter claimed. See In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 994-995,
154 USPQ 118, 122 (CCPA 1967); see also Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d
1320, 1326, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1486 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the present case, the required guidance
is not present in the specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007