Results for Written Description Requirement

In re Owens.

Case Number: CLB0300

Date: 03.26.2013

“Unclaimed boundary” lines in continuation application for design patent, which indicate that applicant has disclaimed portion beyond boundary while claiming area within it, typically should satisfy written description requirement only if lines make explicit boundary that already exists, but was unclaimed, in original disclosure.

view Case Detail Download PDF

LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc.

Case Number: CLB0168

Date: 10.04.2005

Patentee cannot always satisfy written description requirement, in supporting expansive claim language, merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the claimed invention; specification of patent for method of digital compression using discreet wavelet transforms, which discloses single method of creating “seamless” DWT, does not entitle inventor to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Gentry Gallery Inc. v. Berkline Corp.

Case Number: CLB0170

Date: 01.27.1998

In view of the specification and testimony that the inventor had not, at the time the patent application was filed, considered a particular structural arrangement encompassed by claims broadened during prosecution, the Federal Circuit invalidates these claims based on the written description requirement.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Wallach

Case Number: CLB0087

Date: 08.11.2004

Claims directed to isolated DNA molecules encoding proteins that inhibit cytotoxic effects of tumor necrosis factor were properly rejected for failure to satisfy written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification provided only partial amino acid sequence and, therefore, it cannot be held that DNA molecules claimed in application have been described.

view Case Detail

Nystrom v. TREX Co.

Case Number: CLB0096

Date: 09.14.2005

Absent some indication in written description and/or prosecution history that inventor intended claim term to cover more than ordinary and customary meaning revealed by context of intrinsic record, it is improper to read term to encompass broader definition found in dictionary; in action for infringement of claims directed to board used in constructing floors, intrinsic record limits scope of term “board” to wood cut from log.

view Case Detail Download PDF

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.

Case Number: CLB0052

Date: 02.13.2004

In common parlance, as well as in the case law, the three requirements of § 112, ¶ 1 are the “written description requirement,” the “enablement requirement,” and the “best mode requirement.” For the written description requirement, a description of what a claimed material does, rather than what it is, usually does not suffice. In this case, the Rochester ‘850 patent discloses nothing more than a hoped-for function for an as-yet-to-be discovered compound and a research plan for trying to find it.

view Case Detail Download PDF