IN RE MEYER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (Reexamination No. 90/010,007) 2010-1304 Appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Decided: December 17, 2010), Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and MOORE,
Abstract: We review the Board’s ultimate determination of obviousness de novo and its underlying findings of fact for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). On appeal, the only disputed claim element is the half-height expeller. Meyer argues that Knight is not prior art because the ’404 patent claims are supported by its parent’s specification and thus entitled to the earlier filing date. We review a written description determination for substantial evidence. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The parent’s specification discloses vertical expellers having a height approximately equal to the height of the discharge opening. ’236 patent at col.3, ll.35-45; col.6, ll.34-35; FIGs. 1-4; 7, 8, 11. Nowhere does the parent disclose shorter vertical expellers. As such, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the parent’s specification fails to convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the inventors were in possession of the shorter expellers when the parent was filed.