Drafting a patent application often involves describing the invention both broadly and in detail. But how can something be described both broadly and specifically?A decision in a case between Sprint and Time Warner Cable illustrates one way.
In that case, Time Warner argued that the patents asserted by Sprint did not comply with the written description requirement. It argued that the claims were broader than what was described in the patent description. Time Warner argued that the patent description was limited to ATM networks. The appeals court disagreed.
The patent description at issue in the case included reference to “[b]roadband systems, such as Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM).” The court said that this wording “strongly suggests that the patents are not limited to ATM technology.”
In the Sprint case, Time Warner …