Appeal No. 2004-0051 Application No. 09/746,795 merely expounded upon the unremarkable proposition that a broad claim is invalid when the entirety of the specification clearly indicates that the invention is of a much narrower scope.” Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Prods., Inc., supra. For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the originally filed disclosure does not support the two species required by claim 18 on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 for failure to comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007