Holding that our written description requirement requires that a specification “reasonably convey to those skilled in the art” that the inventor “actually invented” and “had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date [of the invention]”
Determining that, under the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard," the construction of the term "integrally attached" as "discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity" was reasonable
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,169 times 492 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."