CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 22





               hiterference No. 105,019                                                                                                
               Correa v. Roberts                                                                                                       
               In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Sm3qhe, 480                               
               F.2d 1376,1382,178 USPQ 279, 284 (CCPA 1973); In re Anderso , 471 F.2d 1237, 1240, 176                                  

               USPQ 331, 333 (CCPA 1973). The issue is whether the specification reasonably conveys to the                             

               artisan that the inventor had possession at the earlier time of the later claimed subject matter.                       

               Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985).                             

                      Based on the foregoing, at the time of filing of its involved application Roberts was not in                     

               possession of the idea that the flap, i.e., something broad and flexible, or flat and thin, that hangs                  

               loosely, attached at one side only, is comprised of the topsheet, the backsheet, and also the barrier                   

               element. The specification of Roberts does describe that the barrier element can be attached to                         

               the flap, but that does not constitute written description of the flap's being comprised of the                         

               topshect, the backsheet, and also the barrier element. Not every means of attachment necessarily                        

               results in the barrier element's taking part in the nature of flaps as flaps, and no means of                           
               attachment sufficient to meet the claimed recitation is disclosed in the specification.                                 

                      For the foregoing reasons, Correa's preliminary motion 3 is granted.                                             

               D. Correa's Preliminary Motion 4                                                                                        

                      By this preliminary motion, Correa asserts that claim 23 of Roberts is unpatentable under                        
               35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or 102(e) over Correa's own involved patent, Patent No. 5,490,847. The                           
               underlying basis of this preliminary motion is similar to that of Correa's preliminary motion 3.                        
               The issue in dispute is not anticipation but written description in Roberts' parent application.                        

               Correa asserts that because claim 23 of Roberts is without written description in Roberts' parent                       

               application, the effective filing date for that claim is the actual filing date of Roberts' involved                    
                                                              - 22 -                                                                   







Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007