Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 18
Application No. 10/039,338
damage to the turf surface being walked on and without puncturing golf turf. Claim 34 is
drawn to a removable golf shoe cleat comprising, inter alia, a flange, attachment means
and a plurality of traction elements that provide traction on the turf wherein the traction
is provided without doing damage to the turf and without puncturing golf turf.
We question whether the appellants' disclosure, as filed, reasonably conveys to a
person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the subject matter broadly
recited in claims 26 to 34. The Federal Circuit has continued to apply the general rule
that disclosure of a species may be sufficient written description support for a later
claimed genus including that species. See Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116,
1124-25, 72 USPQ2d 1785, 1791 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, exceptions to the general
rule that disclosure of a species provides sufficient written description support for a later
filed claim directed to the genus do exist. See In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 69 USPQ2d
1274 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); and Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
In our view, the appellants' written description, as filed, would not reasonably
convey to a person skilled in the art that the appellants had possession of the subject
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007