298 F.3d at 1296, 63 USPQ2d at 1847. Put another way, one skilled in the art, reading the original
disclosure, must reasonably discem the limitation at issue in the claims. Crown Qperations
International, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1376, 62 USPQ2d 1917, 1922 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics CoEp., 32 F.3d 556, 558,31 USPQ2d 1855,1857 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Additionally, a broadly drafted claim must be ftilly supported by the written description
and drawings. Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1333, 65 USPQ2d at 1399.
In order to comply with the written description requirement, the specification "need not
describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims; it must simply
indicate to persons skilled in the art that as of the [filing] date the applicant had invented what is now
claimed." All Dental Prodx LLC v. Advantage Dental Products, 309 F.3d 774, 779, 64 USPQ2d
1945, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 2002) quoting Eiselstein, 52 F.3d at 1039, 34 USPQ2d at 1470 (citing
Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563,19 USPQ2d at 1116, and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,265, 191 USPQ
90, 98 (CCPA 1976)). The failure of the specification to specifically mention a limitation that later
appears in the claims is not fatal when one skilled in the art would recognize upon reading the
specification that the new language reflects what the specification shows has been invented. All
Dental, 309 F.3d at 779, 64 USPQ2d at 1948; Eiselstein, 52 F.3d at 1039, 34 USPQ2d at 1470.
ANle identity of the language of the specification and the added claims is not required, identity of
the subject matter of the claims and that which is described, is necessary. New Railhea , 298 F.3d
at 1296, 63 USPQ2d at 1847. "What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what
is disclosed in the specification. . . ." Festo Colp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogvo Kabushiki Co., 535
U.S. 722, , 122 S.Ct.1831, 1840, 62 USPQ2d 1705, 1712 (2002).
Although specifically claimed features need not be expressly described, the fact that the
feature may be enabled is not alone sufficient to provide a written description for that feature. The
description requirement is separate fromthe enablement requirement of § 112, 11. Enzo Biochem,
296F.3dat 1323,63 USPQ2dat 1612, Vas-Cath, 935 F.2dat 1563,19USPQ2dat 1117 (reinforcing
the long-recognized severabilityofthe "written description" and "enablement"provisions of § 112,
11); In re Wilde , 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals suggested the following example to illustrate this point:
-20-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007