Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 120, the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed U.S. application if the subject matter of the claim is disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph in the earlier filed application. See, e.g., Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Scheiber, 587 F.2d 59, 199 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1978). See also Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 2023 USPQ2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The court noted that the Board evaluated whether the earlier- filed applications provided an “ ipsis verbis ” disclosure of the claimed subgenus. In reviewing this evaluation, the court agreed with the Board that the earlier-filed applications recited a compendium of common organic chemical functional groups, yielding a laundry list disclosure of different moieties for every possible side chain or functional group. Id. at 1357. Thus, it was unclear how many compounds actually fell within the described genera and subgenera. Id. The court also noted that the Board then evaluated whether the prior applications “provided sufficient blaze marks to provide written description support for the ‘830 patent claims.” Id. at 1357. The court agreed with the Board that there were no adequate blaze marks. Id. at 1358. Therefore, the court held that the earlier-filed applications did not provide sufficient written description to support the later-filed patent claims under 35 U.S.C. 120.

Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) or (e), the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of a foreign priority date or the filing date of a provisional application if the corresponding foreign application or provisional application supports the claims in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Purdue Pharma LP v. Iancu, 767 Fed. Appx. 918, 923-24, 2019 USPQ2d 136363 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Kawai v. Metlesics, 480 F.2d 880, 178 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1973); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

In an interference proceeding, the claim corresponding to a count must be supported by the specification in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 170 USPQ 276 (CCPA 1971) (A broad generic disclosure to a class of compounds was not a sufficient written description of a specific compound within the class.). Furthermore, when a party to an interference seeks the benefit of an earlier-filed U.S. patent application, the earlier application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the subject matter of the count. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.

A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.

Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) or (e), the claims in a U.S. application are entitled to the benefit of a foreign priority date or the filing date of a provisional application if the corresponding foreign application or provisional application supports the claims in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Purdue Pharma LP v. Iancu, 767 Fed. Appx. 918, 923-24, 2019 USPQ2d 136363 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Kawai v. Metlesics, 480 F.2d 880, 178 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1973); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.

A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.