Appeal No. 2004-0554
Application No. 09/612,394
disclosure. . . . Rather, it is a question whether the
application necessarily discloses that particular device.'"
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572,
41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing Martin v. Mayer,
823 F.2d 500, 504, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quoting
Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536, 136 USPQ 647, 649-50 (CCPA
1963)).
An Applicant complies with the written description
requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed
limitations[.]" Id. "One does that by such descriptive means as
words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully
set forth the claimed invention." Id. "[T]he written description
must include all of the limitations . . . or the applicant must
show that any absent text is necessarily comprehended in the
description provided and would have been so understood at the
time the patent application was filed." Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d
1348, 1354-1355, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appellants argue that Figures 1, 2 and 3, and the
description in connection with these Figures, clearly show valve
108 operable solely under the control of actuator 110 to allow or
prevent the flow of pressurized fluid into fluid outlet 116 from
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007