Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 controls. Gentry, 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; accord Amgen Inc. v.
2 Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1333, 65 USPQ2d 1385, 1399 (Fed.
3 Cir. 2003) (“[O]ne sees the holding in Gentry for what it really was: an application
4 of the settled principle that a broadly drafted claim must be fully supported by the
5 written description and drawings.”); accord Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner
6 Oilfield Products, Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 1323, 62 USQP2d 1846, 1851 (Fed. Cir.
7 2002)(“[I]n Gentry, we applied and merely expounded upon the unremarkable
8 proposition that a broad claim is invalid when the entirety of the specification
9 clearly indicates that the invention is of a much narrower scope.”); accord PIN/NIP
10 Inc. v. Platte Chemical Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1247-48, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1352 (Fed.
11 Cir. 2002) (“[N]othing in the specification indicates that the invention is anything
12 other than a mixture of two chemicals...[T]he originally filed application, which is
13 devoid of any mention or even implication that the two chemicals can be applied in
14 a spaced, sequential manner, does not support the later-added claim 33.”).
15 The patent owner argues that we have selected only portions of the
16 disclosures in the earlier applications to deny benefit of an earlier filing date under
17 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120. (Amended appeal brief at 16-17.) These selected
18 portions, however, are the most relevant to the question of whether the now
19 claimed subject matter is supported by the disclosures of the earlier filed
20 applications. But more importantly, it is “[t]he applicant for a United States patent
69
Page: Previous 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013