35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ; see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”).

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.

To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“ If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors… considered the ratio… to be part of their invention…. There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should… specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met is a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact."); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (“Precisely how close [to the claimed invention] the description must come to comply with Sec. 112 must be left to case-by-case development.”); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 (inquiry is primarily factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure).

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that “if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function”.). “Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function.” Id.

For some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, “(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 (“The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes” where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution.”). If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972) (stating “the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., “in the same words”] to be sufficient”).

Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. Patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. In most technologies which are mature, and wherein the knowledge and level of skill in the art is high, a written description question should not be raised for claims present in the application when originally filed, even if the specification discloses only a method of making the invention and the function of the invention.

Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. Patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. In most technologies which are mature, and wherein the knowledge and level of skill in the art is high, a written description question should not be raised for claims present in the application when originally filed, even if the specification discloses only a method of making the invention and the function of the invention.

The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he 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.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").

The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.” LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. Id.; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(holding that the disclosure of a species in a parent application did not provide adequate written description support for claims to a genus in a child application where the specification taught against other species).

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.

To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the written description “inquiry is a factual one and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”); see also Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 55 U.S. at 66, 119 S.Ct. at 311, 48 USPQ2d at 1646 (“The word ‘invention’ must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is ‘substantially complete.’ It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of the Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice.”).

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that “if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function”.). “Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function.” Id.

For some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, “(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 (“The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes” where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution.”). If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972) (stating “the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., “in the same words”] to be sufficient”).

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
…
(B) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice, determine whether the invention is complete as evidenced by a reduction to drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
…
(2) If the application as filed does not disclose the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole, determine whether the specification discloses other relevant identifying characteristics sufficient to describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
…
In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement.

(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.

• (1) Determine whether the application as filed describes the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole. The complete structure of a species or embodiment typically satisfies the requirement that the description be set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; cf. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971) (finding a lack of written description because the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention). If a complete structure is disclosed, the written description requirement is satisfied for that species or embodiment, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must not be made.
• (2) If the application as filed does not disclose the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole, determine whether the specification discloses other relevant identifying characteristics sufficient to describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. For example, in the biotech art, if a strong correlation has been established between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function. Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing “a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”).

Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. Patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. In most technologies which are mature, and wherein the knowledge and level of skill in the art is high, a written description question should not be raised for claims present in the application when originally filed, even if the specification discloses only a method of making the invention and the function of the invention.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.” LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. Id.; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(holding that the disclosure of a species in a parent application did not provide adequate written description support for claims to a genus in a child application where the specification taught against other species).

A description as filed is presumed to be adequate, unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to the contrary has been presented by the examiner to rebut the presumption. See, e.g., In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). The examiner, therefore, must have a reasonable basis to challenge the adequacy of the written description. The examiner has the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person skilled in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97. In rejecting a claim, the examiner must set forth express findings of fact regarding the above analysis which support the lack of written description conclusion. These findings should:
…
(B) Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed.

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“ If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors… considered the ratio… to be part of their invention…. There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).

The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus).

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).

• (A) Determine whether the application describes an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.
• (B) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice, determine whether the invention is complete as evidenced by a reduction to drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole.
• (C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
  • (1) Determine whether the application as filed describes the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole. The complete structure of a species or embodiment typically satisfies the requirement that the description be set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; cf. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971) (finding a lack of written description because the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention). If a complete structure is disclosed, the written description requirement is satisfied for that species or embodiment, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must not be made.
  • (2) If the application as filed does not disclose the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole, determine whether the specification discloses other relevant identifying characteristics sufficient to describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. For example, in the biotech art, if a strong correlation has been established between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function. Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing “a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”).

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. (1) Determine whether the application as filed describes the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole. The complete structure of a species or embodiment typically satisfies the requirement that the description be set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; cf. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971) (finding a lack of written description because the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention). If a complete structure is disclosed, the written description requirement is satisfied for that species or embodiment, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must not be made.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. (1) Determine whether the application as filed describes the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole. The complete structure of a species or embodiment typically satisfies the requirement that the description be set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; cf. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971) (finding a lack of written description because the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention). If a complete structure is disclosed, the written description requirement is satisfied for that species or embodiment, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must not be made.

Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. Patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. In most technologies which are mature, and wherein the knowledge and level of skill in the art is high, a written description question should not be raised for claims present in the application when originally filed, even if the specification discloses only a method of making the invention and the function of the invention.

Any claim to a species that does not meet the test described under at least one of (a), (b), or (c) must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he 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.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.” LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. Id.; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(holding that the disclosure of a species in a parent application did not provide adequate written description support for claims to a genus in a child application where the specification taught against other species).

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.
When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)), whether new or amended claims are supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed (see, e.g., In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), whether a claimed invention is entitled to the benefit of or priority to an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386 (see, e.g., New Railhead Mfg. L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 63 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), or whether a specification provides support for a claim corresponding to a count in an interference (see, e.g., Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 503, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 170 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1971)). Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact which must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Consider the claim “A gene comprising SEQ ID NO:1.” The claim may be construed to include specific structures in addition to SEQ ID NO:1, such as a promoter, a coding region, or other elements. Although SEQ ID NO:1 is fully disclosed, there may be insufficient description of other structures embraced by the claim (e.g., promoters, enhancers, coding regions, and other regulatory elements). For guidance on subject matter eligibility of such claims, see MPEP § 2106.

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should… specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met is a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact."); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (“Precisely how close [to the claimed invention] the description must come to comply with Sec. 112 must be left to case-by-case development.”); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 (inquiry is primarily factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure).

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that “if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function”.). “Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function.” Id.

For some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, “(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 (“The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes” where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).

Other ways of establishing possession of a claimed invention may include unique cleavage by particular enzymes, isoelectric points of fragments, detailed restriction enzyme maps, a comparison of enzymatic activities, or antibody cross-reactivity. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966 (Stating that the written description requirement may be satisfied by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.”). Conversely, describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e). (A) Determine whether the application describes an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. (1) Determine whether the application as filed describes the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole. The complete structure of a species or embodiment typically satisfies the requirement that the description be set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; cf. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971) (finding a lack of written description because the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention). If a complete structure is disclosed, the written description requirement is satisfied for that species or embodiment, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must not be made.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. (1) Determine whether the application as filed describes the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole. The complete structure of a species or embodiment typically satisfies the requirement that the description be set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; cf. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971) (finding a lack of written description because the specification lacked the “full, clear, concise, and exact written description” which is necessary to support the claimed invention). If a complete structure is disclosed, the written description requirement is satisfied for that species or embodiment, and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must not be made.

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
…
See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing “a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”).

The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he 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.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").

Once Office personnel have concluded analysis of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. 101, 112, 102, and 103, they should review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm their correctness. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions, and reasons which support them. When possible, the Office action should offer helpful suggestions on how to overcome rejections.

The following Guidelines establish the policies and procedures to be followed by Office personnel in the evaluation of any patent application for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. These Guidelines are based on the Office’s current understanding of the law and are believed to be fully consistent with binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and its predecessor courts.

The following Guidelines establish the policies and procedures to be followed by Office personnel in the evaluation of any patent application for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. These Guidelines are based on the Office’s current understanding of the law and are believed to be fully consistent with binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and its predecessor courts.

A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)), whether new or amended claims are supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed (see, e.g., In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), whether a claimed invention is entitled to the benefit of or priority to an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386 (see, e.g., New Railhead Mfg. L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 63 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), or whether a specification provides support for a claim corresponding to a count in an interference (see, e.g., Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 503, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 170 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1971)). Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact which must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)), whether new or amended claims are supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed (see, e.g., In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), whether a claimed invention is entitled to the benefit of or priority to an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386 (see, e.g., New Railhead Mfg. L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 63 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), or whether a specification provides support for a claim corresponding to a count in an interference (see, e.g., Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 503, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 170 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1971)). Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact which must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

The examiner should evaluate each claim to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. See, e.g., Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”). The absence of definitions or details for well-established terms or procedures should not be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description. Limitations may not, however, be imported into the claims from the specification.

The examiner should evaluate each claim to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. See, e.g., Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”). The absence of definitions or details for well-established terms or procedures should not be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description. Limitations may not, however, be imported into the claims from the specification.

The examiner should evaluate each claim to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. See, e.g., Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”). The absence of definitions or details for well-established terms or procedures should not be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description. Limitations may not, however, be imported into the claims from the specification.

A specification may describe an actual reduction to practice by showing that the inventor constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim and determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“[T]here cannot be a reduction to practice of the invention… without a physical embodiment which includes all limitations of the claim.”); Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 593, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A] reduction to practice does not occur until the inventor has determined that the invention will work for its intended purpose.”); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (determining that the invention will work for its intended purpose may require testing depending on the character of the invention and the problem it solves). Description of an actual reduction to practice of a biological material may be shown by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., especially 37 CFR 1.804 and 1.809; see also subsection I. supra.

A specification may describe an actual reduction to practice by showing that the inventor constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim and determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“[T]here cannot be a reduction to practice of the invention… without a physical embodiment which includes all limitations of the claim.”); Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 593, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A] reduction to practice does not occur until the inventor has determined that the invention will work for its intended purpose.”); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (determining that the invention will work for its intended purpose may require testing depending on the character of the invention and the problem it solves). Description of an actual reduction to practice of a biological material may be shown by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., especially 37 CFR 1.804 and 1.809; see also subsection I. supra.

The above only describes how to determine whether the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is satisfied. Regardless of the outcome of that determination, Office personnel must complete the patentability determination under all the relevant statutory provisions of title 35 of the U.S. Code.

The above only describes how to determine whether the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is satisfied. Regardless of the outcome of that determination, Office personnel must complete the patentability determination under all the relevant statutory provisions of title 35 of the U.S. Code.

When appropriate, suggest amendments to the claims which can be supported by the application’s written description, being mindful of the prohibition against the addition of new matter in the claims or description. See Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326.

When appropriate, suggest amendments to the claims which can be supported by the application’s written description, being mindful of the prohibition against the addition of new matter in the claims or description. See Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326.

Upon reply by applicant, before repeating any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description, review the basis for the rejection in view of the record as a whole, including amendments, arguments, and any evidence submitted by applicant. If the whole record now demonstrates that the written description requirement is satisfied, do not repeat the rejection in the next Office action. If the record still does not demonstrate that the written description is adequate to support the claim(s), repeat the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, fully respond to applicant’s rebuttal arguments, and properly treat any further showings submitted by applicant in the reply. When a rejection is maintained, any affidavits relevant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, must be thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the next Office action. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1176, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

These Guidelines are intended to form part of the normal examination process. Thus, where Office personnel establish a prima facie case of lack of written description for a claim, a thorough review of the prior art and examination on the merits for compliance with the other statutory requirements, including those of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112, is to be conducted prior to completing an Office action that includes a rejection for lack of written description.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

The examiner should evaluate each claim to determine if sufficient structures, acts, or functions are recited to make clear the scope and meaning of the claim, including the weight to be given the preamble. See, e.g., Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application “to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”). The absence of definitions or details for well-established terms or procedures should not be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of adequate written description. Limitations may not, however, be imported into the claims from the specification.

A description as filed is presumed to be adequate, unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to the contrary has been presented by the examiner to rebut the presumption. See, e.g., In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). The examiner, therefore, must have a reasonable basis to challenge the adequacy of the written description. The examiner has the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person skilled in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97. In rejecting a claim, the examiner must set forth express findings of fact regarding the above analysis which support the lack of written description conclusion. These findings should:

• (A) Identify the claim limitation at issue; and
• (B) Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. A general allegation of “unpredictability in the art” is not a sufficient reason to support a rejection for lack of adequate written description.

A description as filed is presumed to be adequate, unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to the contrary has been presented by the examiner to rebut the presumption. See, e.g., In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). The examiner, therefore, must have a reasonable basis to challenge the adequacy of the written description. The examiner has the initial burden of presenting by a preponderance of evidence why a person skilled in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97. In rejecting a claim, the examiner must set forth express findings of fact regarding the above analysis which support the lack of written description conclusion. These findings should:
…
A general allegation of “unpredictability in the art” is not a sufficient reason to support a rejection for lack of adequate written description.

Upon reply by applicant, before repeating any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description, review the basis for the rejection in view of the record as a whole, including amendments, arguments, and any evidence submitted by applicant. If the whole record now demonstrates that the written description requirement is satisfied, do not repeat the rejection in the next Office action. If the record still does not demonstrate that the written description is adequate to support the claim(s), repeat the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, fully respond to applicant’s rebuttal arguments, and properly treat any further showings submitted by applicant in the reply. When a rejection is maintained, any affidavits relevant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, must be thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the next Office action. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1176, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Upon reply by applicant, before repeating any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description, review the basis for the rejection in view of the record as a whole, including amendments, arguments, and any evidence submitted by applicant. If the whole record now demonstrates that the written description requirement is satisfied, do not repeat the rejection in the next Office action. If the record still does not demonstrate that the written description is adequate to support the claim(s), repeat the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, fully respond to applicant’s rebuttal arguments, and properly treat any further showings submitted by applicant in the reply. When a rejection is maintained, any affidavits relevant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, must be thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the next Office action. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1176, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Upon reply by applicant, before repeating any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description, review the basis for the rejection in view of the record as a whole, including amendments, arguments, and any evidence submitted by applicant. If the whole record now demonstrates that the written description requirement is satisfied, do not repeat the rejection in the next Office action. If the record still does not demonstrate that the written description is adequate to support the claim(s), repeat the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, fully respond to applicant’s rebuttal arguments, and properly treat any further showings submitted by applicant in the reply. When a rejection is maintained, any affidavits relevant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, must be thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the next Office action. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1176, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Upon reply by applicant, before repeating any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description, review the basis for the rejection in view of the record as a whole, including amendments, arguments, and any evidence submitted by applicant. If the whole record now demonstrates that the written description requirement is satisfied, do not repeat the rejection in the next Office action. If the record still does not demonstrate that the written description is adequate to support the claim(s), repeat the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, fully respond to applicant’s rebuttal arguments, and properly treat any further showings submitted by applicant in the reply. When a rejection is maintained, any affidavits relevant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, must be thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the next Office action. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1176, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“ If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors… considered the ratio… to be part of their invention…. There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).

If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and “equivalents thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, “cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.

If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and “equivalents thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, “cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.

What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution.”). If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972) (stating “the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., “in the same words”] to be sufficient”).

What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution.”). If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972) (stating “the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., “in the same words”] to be sufficient”).

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
…
In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he 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.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Consider the claim “A gene comprising SEQ ID NO:1.” The claim may be construed to include specific structures in addition to SEQ ID NO:1, such as a promoter, a coding region, or other elements. Although SEQ ID NO:1 is fully disclosed, there may be insufficient description of other structures embraced by the claim (e.g., promoters, enhancers, coding regions, and other regulatory elements). For guidance on subject matter eligibility of such claims, see MPEP § 2106.

There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Consider the claim “A gene comprising SEQ ID NO:1.” The claim may be construed to include specific structures in addition to SEQ ID NO:1, such as a promoter, a coding region, or other elements. Although SEQ ID NO:1 is fully disclosed, there may be insufficient description of other structures embraced by the claim (e.g., promoters, enhancers, coding regions, and other regulatory elements). For guidance on subject matter eligibility of such claims, see MPEP § 2106.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

Office personnel should adhere to the following procedures when reviewing patent applications for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure. For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the “examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination” and, thus, “[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.” Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because “the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes” and “[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential”.).

Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. Patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. In most technologies which are mature, and wherein the knowledge and level of skill in the art is high, a written description question should not be raised for claims present in the application when originally filed, even if the specification discloses only a method of making the invention and the function of the invention.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.” LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. Id.; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(holding that the disclosure of a species in a parent application did not provide adequate written description support for claims to a genus in a child application where the specification taught against other species).

To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002) For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification.

For some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, “(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 (“The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes” where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).

Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are “representative of the full variety or scope of the genus,” or by the establishment of “a reasonable structure-function correlation.” Such correlations may be established “by the inventor as described in the specification,” or they may be “known in the art at the time of the filing date.” See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Holding that claims to all human antibodies that bind IL-12 with a particular binding affinity rate constant (i.e., k off) were not adequately supported by a specification describing only a single type of human antibody having the claimed features because the disclosed antibody was not representative of other types of antibodies in the claimed genus, as demonstrated by the fact that other disclosed antibodies had different types of heavy and light chains, and shared only a 50% sequence similarity in their variable regions with the disclosed antibodies.). Description of a representative number of species does not require the description to be of such specificity that it would provide individual support for each species that the genus embraces. For example, in the molecular biology arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid sequences that encoded the amino acid sequence. Since the genetic code is widely known, a disclosure of an amino acid sequence would provide sufficient information such that one would accept that an inventor was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acids encoding a given amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by “whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it”). “Compliance with the written description requirement is essentially a fact-based inquiry that will ‘necessarily vary depending on the nature of the invention claimed.’” Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 963, 63 USPQ2d at 1612. An application specification may show actual reduction to practice by describing testing of the claimed invention or, in the case of certain biological materials, by specifically describing a deposit made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.801 et seq. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 965, 63 USPQ2d at 1614 (“reference in the specification to a deposit may also satisfy the written description requirement with respect to a claimed material”); see also Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) (“The requirement for a specific identification is consistent with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and to provide an antecedent basis for the biological material which either has been or will be deposited before the patent is granted.” Id. at 34,876. “The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.” Id. at 34,880.) Such a deposit is not a substitute for a written description of the claimed invention. The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 (“As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.”).

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.”). “A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.” In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) On the other hand, there may be situations where one species adequately supports a genus. See, e.g., Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211 USPQ at 326-27 (disclosure of a single method of adheringly applying one layer to another was sufficient to support a generic claim to “adheringly applying” because one skilled in the art reading the specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered); In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteroid in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a “physiologically active steroid” and DMSO because “use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds. Occasionally, a functional recitation of those known compounds in the specification may be sufficient as that description.”); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285 (CCPA 1973) (the phrase “air or other gas which is inert to the liquid” was sufficient to support a claim to “inert fluid media” because the description of the properties and functions of the air or other gas segmentizing medium would suggest to a person skilled in the art that appellant’s invention includes the use of “inert fluid” broadly.). See Juno, 10 F.4th 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (where the claims are directed to species that bind to various selected targets, it is not fatal that all species are not disclosed as long as the patent provides other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared traits).

There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Consider the claim “A gene comprising SEQ ID NO:1.” The claim may be construed to include specific structures in addition to SEQ ID NO:1, such as a promoter, a coding region, or other elements. Although SEQ ID NO:1 is fully disclosed, there may be insufficient description of other structures embraced by the claim (e.g., promoters, enhancers, coding regions, and other regulatory elements). For guidance on subject matter eligibility of such claims, see MPEP § 2106.

If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and “equivalents thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, “cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.

If the originally filed disclosure does not provide support for each claim limitation, or if an element which applicant describes as essential or critical is not claimed, a new or amended claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as lacking adequate written description, or in the case of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, the priority or benefit claim must be denied.

Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“ If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors… considered the ratio… to be part of their invention…. There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“ If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors… considered the ratio… to be part of their invention…. There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution.”). If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972) (stating “the description need not be in ipsis verbis [i.e., “in the same words”] to be sufficient”).

The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus).

The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus).

The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus).

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

Office personnel should adhere to the following procedures when reviewing patent applications for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure. For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the “examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination” and, thus, “[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.” Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because “the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes” and “[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential”.).

With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should… specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met is a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact."); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (“Precisely how close [to the claimed invention] the description must come to comply with Sec. 112 must be left to case-by-case development.”); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 (inquiry is primarily factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure).

Office personnel should adhere to the following procedures when reviewing patent applications for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure. For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the “examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination” and, thus, “[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.” Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because “the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes” and “[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential”.).

Office personnel should adhere to the following procedures when reviewing patent applications for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure. For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the “examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination” and, thus, “[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.” Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because “the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes” and “[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential”.).

Office personnel should adhere to the following procedures when reviewing patent applications for compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure. For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the “examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination” and, thus, “[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency.” Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed.App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because “the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes” and “[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential”.).

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he 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.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 require that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention….” This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description”). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). “The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term.

Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a “laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) (“ If n-propylamine had been used in making the compound instead of n-butylamine, the compound of claim 13 would have resulted. Appellants submit to us, as they did to the board, an imaginary specific example patterned on specific example 6 by which the above butyl compound is made so that we can see what a simple change would have resulted in a specific supporting disclosure being present in the present specification. The trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it.” (emphasis in original)); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors… considered the ratio… to be part of their invention…. There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion”).

If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and “equivalents thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, “cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.
See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification. It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure.").

The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus).

With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should… specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met is a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact."); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (“Precisely how close [to the claimed invention] the description must come to comply with Sec. 112 must be left to case-by-case development.”); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 (inquiry is primarily factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure).

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should… specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.” LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. Id.; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(holding that the disclosure of a species in a parent application did not provide adequate written description support for claims to a genus in a child application where the specification taught against other species).

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

Prior to determining whether the disclosure provides adequate written description for the claimed subject matter, the examiner should review the claims and the entire specification, including the specific embodiments, figures, and sequence listings, to understand how applicant provides support for the various features of the claimed invention. The disclosure of an element may be critical where those of ordinary skill in the art would require it to understand that inventor was in possession of the invention. Compare Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1215, 211 USPQ at 327 (“one skilled in the art who read Rasmussen’s specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”) (emphasis in original), with Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it”). The analysis of whether the specification complies with the written description requirement calls for the examiner to compare the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether applicant has demonstrated that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Such a review is conducted from the standpoint of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed (see, e.g., Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865, 26 USPQ2d 1767, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993)) and should include a determination of the field of the invention and the level of skill and knowledge in the art. For some arts, there is an inverse correlation between the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the specificity of disclosure necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.

If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and “equivalents thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, “cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.

If a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts in the specification and “equivalents thereof.” See 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See also B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In considering whether there is 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, support for a means- (or step) plus- function claim limitation, the examiner must consider not only the original disclosure contained in the summary and detailed description of the invention portions of the specification, but also the original claims, abstract, and drawings. A means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation is adequately described under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, if: (1) The written description adequately links or associates adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function claim limitation; or (2) it is clear based on the facts of the application that one skilled in the art would have known what structure, material, or acts disclosed in the specification perform the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation. See Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“'consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing a structure."). Note also that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, “cannot stand where there is adequate description in the specification to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, regarding means-plus-function recitations that are not, per se, challenged for being unclear.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976). See "Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining the Applicability of 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 6," 65 Fed. Reg. 38510, June 21, 2000; see also MPEP § 2181. However, when a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Consider the claim “A gene comprising SEQ ID NO:1.” The claim may be construed to include specific structures in addition to SEQ ID NO:1, such as a promoter, a coding region, or other elements. Although SEQ ID NO:1 is fully disclosed, there may be insufficient description of other structures embraced by the claim (e.g., promoters, enhancers, coding regions, and other regulatory elements). For guidance on subject matter eligibility of such claims, see MPEP § 2106.

There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“[W]e are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Consider the claim “A gene comprising SEQ ID NO:1.” The claim may be construed to include specific structures in addition to SEQ ID NO:1, such as a promoter, a coding region, or other elements. Although SEQ ID NO:1 is fully disclosed, there may be insufficient description of other structures embraced by the claim (e.g., promoters, enhancers, coding regions, and other regulatory elements). For guidance on subject matter eligibility of such claims, see MPEP § 2106.

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. For example, the amino acid sequence of a protein along with knowledge of the genetic code might put an inventor in possession of the genus of nucleic acids capable of encoding the protein, but the same information would not place the inventor in possession of the naturally-occurring DNA or mRNA encoding the protein. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 34 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a process could not render the product of that process obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103). (For guidance on subject matter eligibility of claims to naturally-occurring compositions, see MPEP § 2106.) The Federal Circuit has pointed out that, under United States law, a description that merely renders a claimed invention obvious may not sufficiently describe the invention for the purposes of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1567, 43 USPQ2d at 1405; compare Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549, 41 USPQ2d 1801, 1805 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed…. Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.”).

While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). With respect to the correction of sequencing errors in applications disclosing nucleic acid and/or amino acid sequences, it is well known that sequencing errors are a common problem in molecular biology. See, e.g., David Laehnemann et al., Denoising DNA deep sequencing data—high-throughput sequencing errors and their correction, 17 Briefings in Bioinformatics 154–1791 (2016); Peter Richterich, Estimation of Errors in ‘Raw’ DNA Sequences: A Validation Study, 8 Genome Research 251-59 (1998). For example, if an application as filed includes incorrect nucleic acid sequence information and references a deposit of the sequenced material made in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.801 et seq., an amendment to correct the nucleic acid sequence may be permissible where the amendment conforms the sequence information to the compound described in the specification and covered by the claims. See Cubist Pharm., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1118, 117 USPQ2d 1054, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“The fact that the inventors were mistaken as to one aspect of the structure of daptomycin at the time the application [] was filed does not render the specification inadequate to satisfy the written description requirement. It was enough that the specification disclosed relevant identifying characteristics that distinguished daptomycin from other compounds and thus showed that the inventors had possession of daptomycin, even though they may not have had an accurate picture of the entire chemical structure of that compound.” Id. at 1120, 117 USPQ2d at 1060.) Deposits made after the filing date may be relied upon to provide support for the correction of sequence information only if applicant submits a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.804 stating that the biological material which is deposited is the biological material specifically defined in the application as filed.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Under certain circumstances, omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248, 64 USPQ2d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim for a method of inhibiting sprout growth on tubers by treating them with spaced, sequential application of two chemicals was held invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that invention was a method of applying a "composition" containing the two chemicals.); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing the location of the control means); Johnson Worldwide Assoc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that, in Gentry Gallery, the “court’s determination that the patent disclosure did not support a broad meaning for the disputed claim terms was premised on clear statements in the written description that described the location of a claim element–the ‘control means’ –as ‘the only possible location’ and that variations were ‘outside the stated purpose of the invention.’ … Gentry Gallery, then, considers the situation where the patent’s disclosure makes crystal clear that a particular (i.e., narrow) understanding of a claim term is an ‘essential element of [the inventor’s] invention.’”); see also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1158-59, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape.). A claim that omits an element that applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962) (“[O]ne skilled in this art would not be taught by the written description of the invention in the specification that any ‘aryl or substituted aryl radical’ would be suitable for the purposes of the invention but rather that only certain aryl radicals and certain specifically substituted aryl radicals [i.e., aryl azides] would be suitable for such purposes.”(emphasis in original)). A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may also be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01.

Claim construction is an essential part of the examination process. Each claim must be separately analyzed and given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of and consistent with the written description. See, e.g., In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1319-1320, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that “[t]he construction of the claims [is] important to the written description analysis” and patent holder’s failure “to point to a genuine factual dispute over whether the specification disclosed” the claimed subject matter made summary judgment proper on that issue.); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The entire claim must be considered, including the preamble language and the transitional phrase. “Preamble language” is that language in a claim appearing before the transitional phase, e.g., before “comprising,” “consisting essentially of,” or “consisting of.” The transitional term “comprising” (and other comparable terms, e.g., “containing,” and “including”) is “open-ended” in that it covers the expressly recited subject matter, alone or in combination with unrecited subject matter. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves the “claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”); see also MPEP § 2111.03. “By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”); see also AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F3.d 1234, 1239-1240, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954, 137 USPQ 893, 895-96 (CCPA 1963). If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964); see also MPEP § 2111.03. The claim as a whole, including all limitations found in the preamble (see Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (determining that preamble language that constitutes a structural limitation is actually part of the claimed invention)), the transitional phrase, and the body of the claim, must be sufficiently supported to satisfy the written description requirement. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.

An applicant may show that the inventor was in possession of an invention by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that are sufficiently detailed to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565, 19 USPQ2d at 1118 (“drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by Sec. 112 ”); In re Wolfensperger, 302 F.2d 950, 133 USPQ 537 (CCPA 1962) (the drawings of applicant’s specification provided sufficient written descriptive support for the claim limitation at issue); Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 398, 155 USPQ 697, 703 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (“In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“In claims involving chemical materials, generic formulae usually indicate with specificity what the generic claims encompass. One skilled in the art can distinguish such a formula from others and can identify many of the species that the claims encompass. Accordingly, such a formula is normally an adequate description of the claimed genus.”). The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process.

For some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, “(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 (“The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes” where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).

For some biomolecules, examples of identifying characteristics include a sequence, structure, binding affinity, binding specificity, molecular weight, and length. Although structural formulas provide a convenient method of demonstrating possession of specific molecules, other identifying characteristics or combinations of characteristics may demonstrate the requisite possession. As explained by the Federal Circuit, “(1) examples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description; (2) the written description standard may be met … even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366, 79 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358, 76 USPQ2d at 1084 (“The Board erred in holding that the specifications do not meet the written description requirement because they do not reiterate the structure or formula or chemical name for the nucleotide sequences of the claimed chimeric genes” where the genes were novel combinations of known DNA segments.). However, the claimed invention itself must be adequately described in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. For example, disclosure of an antigen fully characterized by its structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or deposit in a public depository does not, without more, provide an adequate written description of an antibody claimed by its binding affinity to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. See Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1378, 124 USPQ2d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“knowledge of the chemical structure of an antigen [does not give] the required kind of structure-identifying information about the corresponding antibodies”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1351-52, 97 USPQ2d 1870, 1877 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(patent disclosed the antigen the claimed antibody was supposed to bind, but did not disclose any antibodies with the specific claimed properties).

A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus. See also MPEP § 806.04(e).
(C) If the application does not describe an actual reduction to practice or reduction to drawings or structural chemical formula as discussed above, determine whether the invention has been set forth in terms of distinguishing identifying characteristics as evidenced by other descriptions of the invention that are sufficiently detailed to show that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
…
For example, in the biotech art, if a strong correlation has been established between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function. Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function.

Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the inventor was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 “varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. Patents and printed publications in the art should be relied upon to determine whether an art is mature and what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. In most technologies which are mature, and wherein the knowledge and level of skill in the art is high, a written description question should not be raised for claims present in the application when originally filed, even if the specification discloses only a method of making the invention and the function of the invention.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. For example, disclosure of only a method of making the invention and the function may not be sufficient to support a product claim other than a product-by-process claim. See, e.g., Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d at 1169, 25 USPQ2d at 1605; Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. Where the process has actually been used to produce the product, the written description requirement for a product-by-process claim is clearly satisfied; however, the requirement may not be satisfied where it is not clear that the acts set forth in the specification can be performed, or that the product is produced by that process. Furthermore, disclosure of a partial structure without additional characterization of the product may not be sufficient to evidence possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021 (“A gene is a chemical compound, albeit a complex one, and it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it. Conception does not occur unless one has a mental picture of the structure of the chemical, or is able to define it by its method of preparation, its physical or chemical properties, or whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it. It is not sufficient to define it solely by its principal biological property, e.g., encoding human erythropoietin, because an alleged conception having no more specificity than that is simply a wish to know the identity of any material with that biological property. We hold that when an inventor is unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials, as well as a method for obtaining it, conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, i.e., until after the gene has been isolated.” (citations omitted)). In such instances the alleged conception fails not merely because the field is unpredictable or because of the general uncertainty surrounding experimental sciences, but because the conception is incomplete due to factual uncertainty that undermines the specificity of the inventor’s idea of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229, 32 USPQ2d 1915, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Reduction to practice in effect provides the only evidence to corroborate conception (and therefore possession) of the invention. Id.

The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should… specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).

To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents); In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image, unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be found in the specification[,]… mention of representative compounds may provide an implicit description upon which to base generic claim language.”); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily implicitly described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads); Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1356-58, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found the later-filed patent claims could not receive benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, because the earlier-filed applications did not have ipsis verbis disclosure of the claimed subgenus and did not provide sufficient blaze marks to provide the later-filed claims with sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” (citations omitted)); Yeda Research and Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co., 837 F.3d 1341, 120 USPQ2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.”) (citing Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int’l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1423, 5 USPQ2d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, each claim must include all elements which applicant has described as essential. See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Assoc. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50 USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833.

Once Office personnel have concluded analysis of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. 101, 112, 102, and 103, they should review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm their correctness. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions, and reasons which support them. When possible, the Office action should offer helpful suggestions on how to overcome rejections.

Once Office personnel have concluded analysis of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. 101, 112, 102, and 103, they should review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm their correctness. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions, and reasons which support them. When possible, the Office action should offer helpful suggestions on how to overcome rejections.

Once Office personnel have concluded analysis of the claimed invention under all the statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. 101, 112, 102, and 103, they should review all the proposed rejections and their bases to confirm their correctness. Only then should any rejection be imposed in an Office action. The Office action should clearly communicate the findings, conclusions, and reasons which support them. When possible, the Office action should offer helpful suggestions on how to overcome rejections.