Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 A finding of adequate written description support based on what are
2 essentially non-disclosures or, at best, nebulous statements would contradict other
3 portions of the original disclosures. This would violate the notice function of a
4 patent application. “The purpose of the written description requirement is to
5 prevent an applicant from later asserting that he invented that which he did not; the
6 applicant for a patent is therefore required to ‘recount his invention in such detail
7 [in the originally filed specification] that his future claims can be determined to be
8 encompassed within his original creation.’” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d
9 at 1397.
10
11 The Appealed Claims Are Anticipated or Obvious over Vandenberg
12 Having determined that the appealed claims are not entitled to benefit of an
13 earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120, we turn to the teachings of
14 Vandenberg. Vandenberg describes a process in which 2 parts ethylene and 10
15 parts octene-1 (corresponding to the patent owner’s recited CH2=CHR alpha-
16 olefin) are copolymerized in the presence of: (i) a hydrocarbon-insoluble reaction
17 product prepared by mixing 0.0603 part of diethylaluminum chloride
18 (corresponding to the patent owner’s recited aluminum alkyl compound) and
19 0.0475 part of titanium tetrachloride (corresponding to the patent owner’s recited
77
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013