Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
While there is no requirement that the claimed invention be described in the
identical wording that was used in the specification, there must be sufficient
disclosure to show one of skill in this art that the inventor “invented what is
claimed.” See Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
208 F.3d 989, 1000, 54 USPQ2d 1227, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In this case, we find that the Specification supports the limitation that
surface sea-water is substantially excluded from the swimming pool
structure, but does not support the exclusion of aquatic animals.
With respect to the exclusion of surface sea-water, we agree with
Appellant that the Specification shows possession of the concept of using
only deep-sea water in its swimming pool structure (App. Br. 7-8; Spec. 3:
3-5 (“It is an object . . . to provide a pool on the sea which uses pure and
clean deep-sea water.”)) and thus one of skill in the art would recognize that
surface-sea water is to be excluded from it. In addition to emphasizing the
importance of “pure and clean deep-sea water” free from contaminants
(Spec. 11: 13-20), the Specification describes a means for maintaining the
supplied deep-sea water “fresh at all times” by continuously feeding deep-
sea water into the pool while draining it by pump (Spec. 14: 21-26),
indicating that the pool is entirely filled with deep-sea water and thus
excludes surface-sea water.
However, we do not find that the Specification supports the newly
added limitation of “wherein . . . aquatic animals are substantially excluded
from said swimming pool structure.” For support for this claim limitation,
Appellant refers to the structure disclosed in Fig. 1 and extensions 10
described on page 14 of the Specification “for frightening away sea animals”
such as sharks (App. Br. 8). In each case, the structures referred to in the
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013