Written Description
58. In its ordinary meaning, "plurality" refers to a range of a number of objects beginning with
two and otherwise being unbounded. It is a generic term which connotes from as few as two
to a large number of objects.
59. The relied upon portions of Bilstad's written description relating to Bilstad Figures 1-8
describe a member capable of manipulating or moving objects at best in a small number of
directions.
60. Bilstad's written description does not provide support for the ftill scope of the phrase "a
moveable member manipulating objects in a plurality of directions within the reactive
volume wherein the manipulated objects are sterilized."
ANALYSIS
Wakalopulos asserts that Bilstad involved claims, Claims 57-65, are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ý 1, because those claims are not supported by a written description in Bilstad's
involved application.
A purpose of the written description requirement is to prevent an applicant from later
asserting that he invented that which he did not; the applicant for a patent is therefore required to
"recount his invention in such detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed
within his original creation." Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330,
65 USPQ2d 1385,1397 (Fed. Cit. 2003) quoting Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,1561,
19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 199 1) (citation omitted). Satisfaction of this requirement is
measured by the understanding of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Amg , 314 F.3d at 1330, 65
USPQ2d at 1397; Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966
(Fed. Cir. 1997) ("The description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize
that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.").
While it is legitimate to amend claims or add claims to a patent application purposefully to
encompass devices or processes of others, there must be support for such amendments or additions
in the originally filed application. PINNIP, Inc. v. Platte Chemical Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1247, 64
USPQ2d 1344,1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863
18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007