Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 11834817 - (D) MORGAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte VOLLM et al 11740573 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Chang et al 12072578 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/102 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. MAIER, LEIGH C
The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To that end, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must also 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 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations” (emphasis in original). Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not necessary for the specification to describe the claimed invention ipsissimis verbis; all that is required is that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978).
When an Applicant claims a class, the Applicant “must describe that class in order to meet the description requirement of the statute.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968 (CCPA 1971). “[W]hile the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure …, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1349. “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” Id.
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978)
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201090 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Pomeranz 12175302 - (D) KAISER 103 BAE SYSTEMS CARTER, MICHAEL W
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7274926 et al 10/089,623 95001210 - (D) CHEN 103/314(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Third Party Requester: PERKINS COIE LLP original Kenyon & Kenyon LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original CHAN, RICHARD