Opinion ID: 209949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ” Energizer Br. 28.

Text: The specification sets forth a detailed test procedure. See ‘709 patent col.4 l.38– col.5 l.44. The specification states that the procedure is run by preparing a 100-gram “anode mix” using 63 grams of zinc powder. Id. col.4 ll.38–52. Referring to FIG. 1 of the patent, the specification recites that “an anode collector 10 in the form of a disk with a tap 12 is made from 33 ga cartridge brass sheet placed inside a flat bottomed 500 ml polypropylene beaker that is cut off at about the 250 ml level, thus providing a cell cup 1.” Id. col.4 ll.45–49. The anode mix is then placed in the “cell cup”: “One hundred grams of the anode mix 15 is added into the cup 1 on top of the anode current collector 10.” Id. col.4 ll.50–52. Still referring to FIG. 1, the specification continues by stating that “[a] strip of separator paper 19 is placed on the wall of the cup 1 to shield the anode collector tab 12 from the cathode collector 20.” Id. col.4 ll.54–56. The specification 2007-1197 15 explains that “[t]he cathode collector 20 is a piece of 0.011 inch thick Type ‘K’ zinc sheet, and is cut in a 3 inch disk 22 with a 0.5 inch by 1.5 inch tab 23. The disk 22 contains openings 25 that permit escape of hydrogen gas during discharge.” Id. col.4 ll.56–60. Next, referring to FIG. 2 of the patent, the specification describes in detail the procedure for “identifying zinc for cells” of the invention claimed in the patent. Id. col.5 ll.1–48. The specification continues with a description of the kinds of additives that are appropriate for the cells of the invention, id. col.5 l.52–col.6 l.51, and with a discussion of the anode current collector 10, id. col.6 l.52–col.7 l.31. This discussion specifies that “[a] burnished brass anode collector is preferably employed in the cells of this invention.” Id. col.6 ll.52–53. Before the claims of the patent, the specification gives two examples of cells that can be used in the described procedure. Id. col.8 l.62–col.10 l.55. The first sentence of Example 1 states that “[s]everal C-size cells are constructed, discharged and stored at different temperatures for different periods.” Id. col.8 ll.62–63. For its part, the first sentence of Example 2 states that “[c]ells are prepared in the same manner with the same components as in Example 1, except that no indium hydroxide is added.” Id. col.10 ll.16–18. I have described the specification of the ‘709 patent at some length to demonstrate why it is clear to me that what is claimed in claim 1 of the ’709 patent is not what is described in the patent specification. Claim 1 claims a commercial battery cell in which the anode gel (anode) is “discharged for 161 minutes to 15% depth of discharge at 2.88A,” whereas, as Energizer recognizes, the specification describes only a test cell—which is not referenced in the claims—being discharged to that parameter. The specification consistently uses the term “anode gel” to refer to the anode of a test 2007-1197 16 cell, not to the anode of a completed battery. See id. col.4 l.39 (describing the process of subjecting an anode gel of a test cell to the discharge test), col.8 l.60–col.10 l.15 (providing examples of test cells). Finally, the specification contains no language linking the anode gel of a completed battery, as described in the claims, with the test cell described in the specification. In a word, at the root of the written description issue in this case lies the fact that the invention of the ’709 patent is a test to pre-screen zincs for use in zero-mercury added alkaline batteries to be sold to consumers. 4 As just seen, that is the invention that is described in the patent specification. However, the claims of the ’709 patent were drafted to claim commercial alkaline batteries. “Specifications teach. Claims claim.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The problem in this case is that the specification of the ‘709 patent does not teach what is claimed, whereas the claims of the patent do not claim what is taught. For that reason, the decision of the Commission that the asserted claims of the ’709 patent are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 is neither unsupported by substantial evidence nor tainted by legal error. 5 See Univ. of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 921 (stating that deciding whether the written description requirement is met involves “determining whether the subject matter defined in the claims is described in the specification”). 4 Dr. Scarr, an inventor of the subject matter of the ’709 patent, testified that “[his] invention was a way of qualifying zinc powder [f]or use in batteries that were to be used in the zero-mercury applications.” Scarr Dep. 18. 5 Since I conclude that claims 1–7 of the ‘709 patent are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement, I do not reach the issue of infringement. 2007-1197 17