WAKALOPULOS et al. V. BILSTAD et al. - Page 21




                                 For greater clarity on this point, consider the case where the specification                                            
                                 discusses only compound A and contains no broadening language of any                                                    
                                 kind. This might very well enable one skilled in the art to make and use                                                
                                 compounds B and C; yet the class consisting of A, B and C has not been                                                  
                                 described.                                                                                                              
               In re Di Leone, 436 F.2d 1404,1405 n.1, 168 USPQ 592,593 n.1 (CCPA 1971). See also Martin                                                 
               v. Maye 823 F.2d 500,505, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987) quoting Jepson v. Colem ,                                                  
               314 F.2d 533, 536, 136 USPQ 647, 649-50 (CCPA 1963) ("It is not a question of whether one                                                 
               skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure                                  
               [but] whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device.").                                                            
                        Similarly just because a limitation would have been obvious from the disclosure does not                                         
               mean it was described. A disclosure that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not                                        
               sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed                                          
               invention with all its limitations. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158, 47 USPQ2d 1829,                                          
               1832 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.                                                                     

                        Wakalopulos specifically argues:                                                                                                 
                                           Bilstad's application claims 57-65, as well as the count, call for a                                          
                                  sterilization apparatus comprising a "moveable member manipulating objects                                             
                                  in a plurality of directions within the reactive volume wherein the                                                    
                                  manipulated objects are sterilized." Such a moveable member, capable of                                                
                                  manipulating objects in a plurality of directions within the reactive volume,                                          
                                  is not described or disclosed in the Bilstad application.                                                              
               Paper 2 1, pp. 5-6, emphasis original. The challenged claim language is somewhat different in each                                        
               of Bilstad's involved independent Claims 57, 62 and 65. Bilstad Claim 57 requires:                                                        
                                  a moveable member [capable ofl manipulating objects in a plurality of                                                  
                                  directions within the reactive volume wherein the manipulated objects are                                              
                                  sterilized.                                                                                                            
               Bilstad Application 09/294,964, Paper 15, p. 10. Claim 62 requires:                                                                       
                                  at least one moveable member [capable ofl manipulating objects in a plurality                                          
                                  of directions in the reactive volume wherein manipulated objects are                                                   
                                  sterilized.                                                                                                            
               Bilstad Application 09/294,964, Paper 15, p. 12. Lastly Claim 65 states:                                                                  

                                                                        -21-                                                                             







Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007