Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112. We note that the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit has held that “[t]o 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.” Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 967–968, 78
USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic
AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1876, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Our reviewing court has cautioned, however, that “[t]he disclosure as
originally filed does not … have to provide in haec verba support for the
claimed subject matter at issue.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339
F.3d at 1364, 67 USPQ2d at 1885 (internal citation omitted). “Although
[the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter
claimed, … the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the
art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli,
872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations
omitted). Put another way, “the applicant must . . . convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she
was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in
original). The written description, although it need not include information
that is already known and available to the experienced public, must be in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007