The Supreme Court held that claiming priority of an earlier application requires a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority document of all features of the technical teaching as defined in the claims. If the claimed invention is characterized by a particular property of one of its components that has not (clearly) been disclosed in the priority document, and that permits a person of ordinary skill to make a deliberate selection out of a range of different embodiments (here: insensitivity to UV light), the priority document lacks a clear and unambiguous disclosure of the invention.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF