Opinion ID: 2516294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Priority Date

Text: This court first reviews the district court's summary judgment ruling that the asserted claims of the Williams patents are not entitled to the provisional application priority date. Star, Dkt. No. 703 at 1-12. This court reviews both the district court's grant of summary judgment and determination of priority date without deference. Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 867 (Fed.Cir.2010). Claims deserve the provisional application's earlier filing date so long as that application contains adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Trading Techs. Int'l. Inc. v. eSpeed Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2010). Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the written description of the provisional application must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention claimed in the non-provisional application. New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed.Cir.2002). In this case, the asserted claims deserve the September 15, 1998 priority date of the provisional application. The provisional application's written description discloses that the minimum air flow may be about 28,000 CFM at 1 static pressure in a typical curing barn, but that the minimum flow of air may vary according to conditions and may be determined on a routine basis. J.A. at 62198 (emphasis added). Claim 3 of the provisional application further clarifies that the claimed invention covers a flow ... sufficient to prevent an anaerobic condition around the curing tobacco. J.A. 62205. Because the provisional application teaches one of ordinary skill that a minimum air flow may vary, one of ordinary skill would know that the conditions in a curing barn could demand an air flow of 25,000 CFM. The district court's reliance on specifically disclosed air flow rates improperly narrowed the scope of the provisional application based on an added example in the later-filed non-provisional application that discloses a process for curing using an air flow of approximately 25,000 CFM. Indeed, the Patent Office's recent reexamination confirms that September 15, 1998 is the proper priority date. The September 15, 1998 priority date has several significant implications on this appeal. First, the Peele reference, with an effective filing date of April 26, 1999, is not prior art. Second, because the StarCure process was developed by Williams after September of 1998, failure to disclose this process cannot constitute a failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention. Star, Dkt. No. 703 at 11.