excluding two compounds from the claim to avoid reading on a lost interference count, without explaining as much in the patent
How later courts described this case
- excluding two compounds from the claim to avoid reading on a lost interference count, without explaining as much in the patent
- reversing rejection for in- adequate written description where specification disclosed several species of a genus and claims recited genus but ex- cluded two species of lost interference count
- “It is for the inventor to decide what bounds of protection he will seek.”
- excluding two compounds from the *658 claim to avoid reading on a lost interference count, without explaining as much in the patent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Judge,
dissenting in part.
I would affirm the rejection of claims 64 and 68-72 under § 112, paragraphs 1 and 2, because the specification indicates that a minimum sigma value of + 0.7 is an essential requisite. These claims fail to recite this requisite, thus fail to define appellants’ invention and are broader than the disclosure. I concur in reversing the rejection of claims 1-9.