WAKALOPULOS et al. V. BILSTAD et al. - Page 18




                 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