Opinion ID: 597512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of the Disclosure

Text: 20 Ven-Tel argues that the '302 patent is invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, Ven-Tel argues that the timing means and the means, operative were not described in the specification, and that Hayes maintained the timing means as a trade secret. According to Ven-Tel, Hayes attempted to benefit from the filing date of the 1981 parent application by claiming the escape mechanism without a written description of it in the divisional application filed in 1983, while simultaneously maintaining the escape mechanism as a trade secret. Hayes marketed the Hayes SmartModem in 1981, in which it implemented a software timer as the timing means, the structure of which Ven-Tel asserts was held as a trade secret. 21 The first paragraph of § 112 requires that 22 [t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art ... 23 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1988) (emphasis added). The standard for determining whether the written description requirement has been met has been stated as follows: 24 Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, ... the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.... The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter. 25 Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Whether the written description requirement has been met is a question of fact. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed.Cir.1985). Thus, we must determine whether substantial evidence supports the verdict that the disclosure adequately describes the invention of the challenged claims. 26 Ven-Tel first argues that timing means refers to a software timer, the structure of which is not disclosed. Hayes responds that the specification adequately discloses timing means and refers to several statements in the specification. Hayes points out that the Summary of the Invention section recites that [t]he present invention provides a full duplex intelligent modem wherein the decision making capability preferably resides in a microprocessor ... '302 patent, col. 2, lines 27-29 (emphasis added). Hayes also notes that the specification discloses the preferred type of microprocessor as a Z-8 type. The specification also states: 27 The details of the internal structure of the Z-8 processor used in the preferred embodiment will be known to those skilled in the art but are described in a publication[ ] entitled Z-8 Microcomputer, Preliminary Technical Manual, publication No. 03-3047-02, published by Zilog Inc. 28 '302 patent, col. 5, lines 40-45. 29 We agree that the specification meets the requirements of section 112, first paragraph, recognizing that the specification is directed to one skilled in the art. See Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Indus. Corp., 913 F.2d 923, 926, 16 USPQ2d 1033, 1036 (Fed.Cir.1990) (Of necessity, the disclosure required by section 112 is directed to those skilled in the art.). There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion that one skilled in the art would understand that the timing means of the invention is incorporated into the structure of the microprocessor. For example, when shown a flowchart diagram for implementing the escape sequence, the inventor, Heatherington, testified that if you had experience in doing microprocessor programming, you would know how to implement what's in that diagram. When further asked about being able to implement every detail of the invention from the patent disclosure, Heatherington responded that you would get an escape sequence that required one second on the front end and one second on the back end and some number of characters in the middle, which is what I thought was important to disclose. 30 One skilled in the art would know how to program a microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification. Thus, an inventor is not required to describe every detail of his invention. An applicant's disclosure obligation varies according to the art to which the invention pertains. Disclosing a microprocessor capable of performing certain functions is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of section 112, first paragraph, when one skilled in the relevant art would understand what is intended and know how to carry it out. 6 31 According to Ven-Tel, Hayes retained the firmware listing for implementing the timing means as a trade secret. Thus, Ven-Tel argues that Heatherington should have disclosed the firmware listing itself to meet the written description requirement. We disagree. The disclosure sufficiently recites the function of the firmware: 32 It should be understood that the program included in program ROM 112 of processor 55 includes instructions which are used to control the mode in which the modem of the preferred embodiment operates. In particular, two modes of operation of the preferred embodiment are defined: the command mode; and the transparent mode. 33 '302 patent, col. 5, lines 58-64. The evidence supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to implement the timing means with a microprocessor without a firmware listing. 34 Ven-Tel further states that a microprocessor is defined by its programmable resources and, without programmed firmware, the microprocessor has no special functionality. The evidence of record supports the conclusion that all that was required for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what the invention was and how to carry it out was the disclosure of a microprocessor having certain capabilities and the desired functions it was to perform. We disagree with Ven-Tel's contention that to satisfy section 112, a statement as to the specific function of a microprocessor is inadequate, that the actual program must be disclosed. While this may be true in some instances, this is not such a case. 35 Ven-Tel also focuses on the fact that the heart of the claimed invention of the '302 patent is described only in twenty-seven lines. Certainly no length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention. While some inventions require more disclosure, the adequacy of the description of an invention depends on its content in relation to the particular invention, not its length. 36 Ven-Tel also argues that the detecting means, operative portion of the claims lacks structure in the specification and fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, which states: 37 An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 38 While Heatherington was required to disclose some structure in the specification for all means recitations in the claims, he was not required to disclose every means for implementing the stated function. See D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Patentees are required to disclose in the specification some enabling means for accomplishing the function set forth in the 'means plus function' limitation. At the same time, there is and can be no requirement that applicants describe or predict every possible means of accomplishing that function.). The specification states that 39 [i]n the preferred embodiment, a predetermined sequence of data bits is the escape command accepted at port 50 to return the preferred embodiment to the command mode. Since any predetermined sequence of bits which is defined as an escape command has a finite probability of occurring in any file of data being transmitted by the preferred embodiment, an additional requirement is placed on the signal sequence which is defined as the escape sequence. The preferred embodiment of the present invention must experience one full second of no data being provided as input to data port 50, followed by the predetermined escape command, followed by a second full second of no data in order to interpret that input as the escape sequence. 40 '302 patent, col. 6, lines 16-29. This is what the disclosed microprocessor is programmed to do. 41 Mr. Enlow, Hayes' expert witness, testified that the means recitations were adequately supported by the specification: 42 Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether the means language in the '302 patent is supported by the specification? 43 A: Yes, it is. The specification discloses the microprocessor which the application clearly says is where the escape mechanism would be taken care of. 44 Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the timing means is disclosed in the--the structure is disclosed in the specification? 45 A: Yes. That would be in the microprocessor. 46 Q: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the requirements of section 112 of the patent act to provide structure for the timing means, instruction for the operative means, had been met in the '302 patent? 47 A: Yes.... it was met and it's in the microprocessor. 48 Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record so that the jury could have determined that the specification reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that Heatherington invented the subject matter of the '302 patent. 7 49 Likewise, we disagree with Ven-Tel that the '302 patent failed to include adequate drawings under 35 U.S.C. § 113 (1988). According to section 113, [t]he applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. Sufficient evidence exists to support the conclusion that, to the extent it was necessary, the drawings were sufficient for a skilled artisan to understand the subject matter of the claimed invention. The microprocessor is identified as element 55 in Figure 1B of the specification. On the facts of this case, no more needed to be included in the drawings to satisfy the description requirement. 50 Thus, substantial evidence exists to support a finding that the '302 patent was not invalid for failure to provide an adequate written description.