Ex Parte KOPPOLU et al - Page 34




                  Appeal No. 2005-1431                                                                                                                         
                  Application 09/442,070                                                                                                                       

                   See Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1876, 1885 (Fed.                                                    
                  Cir. 2003) (emphasis added):                                                                                                                 
                                     Paragraph 1 of section 112 of the Patent Act provides that the                                                            
                            "specification shall contain a written description of the invention."  To                                                          
                            fulfill the written description requirement, the patent specification must                                                         
                            describe an invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can                                                         
                            clearly conclude that the inventor invented what is claimed.  Lockwood v.                                                          
                            Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 [41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966] (Fed.                                                               
                            Cir. 1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 [10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618]                                                              
                            (Fed. Cir. 1989).                                                                                                                  
                  "It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the                                                  
                  disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to                                                   
                  modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose."  Lockwood,                                                   
                  107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.  See also Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,                                                  
                  314 F.3d 1313, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The purpose of the written                                                      
                  description requirement is to prevent an applicant from later asserting that he invented that which                                          
                  he did not; the applicant for a patent is therefore required to 'recount his invention in such detail                                        
                  that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his original creation.'  [Vas-                                             
                  Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,] 1561, 19 USPQ2d [1111,] 1115 [(Fed. Cir. 1991)]                                                      
                  (citation omitted)."  Separating incorporations by reference from the written description                                                    
                  requirement of § 112, first paragraph, by permitting applicants to incorporate by reference entire                                           
                  documents without an explanation of what they are being relied on to show would invite the                                                   
                  wholesale incorporation by reference of large numbers of documents and correspondingly                                                       
                  increase the burden on examiners, the public, and the courts to determine the metes and bounds                                               

                                                                             34                                                                                





Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007