Appeal No. 2002-2110 Page 5
Application No. 09/224,748
analyzing Vas-Cath in detail). "The purpose of the 'written description' requirement is
broader than to merely explain how to 'make and use'; the applicant must also convey
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or
she was in possession of the invention." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at
1117.
The test for satisfaction of the written description requirement "is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon 'reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.'" Ralston
Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
"Application sufficiency under §112, first paragraph, must be judged as of the filing date
[of the application]." Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1566, 19 USPQ2d at 1119 (citing United
States Steel Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 865 F.2d 1247, 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1461,
1464 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
In contrast, "to be enabling under §112, a patent must contain a description that
enables one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention." Atlas Powder
Co. v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 960, 220 USPQ 592, 599
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007