An application’s disclosure of a genus does not, without more, imply written description support of a particular species. Here, for example, a parent application’s disclosure of a “rating factor” was found to be insufficient to support a child application’s recitation of either a “driver safety score” or “driver safety data” as particular types of rating factors. It may therefore be helpful to include, in provisional applications for example, a reference to example species for specific support rather than relying on the corresponding genus for generic support.
Background / Facts: The patents on appeal here from rejection at the PTO during CBM review are directed to pricing automobile insurance based on vehicle use, such as the number of sudden stops over a given period. In particular, the claims recite an “interface module” that produces either a “driver safety score” or “driver safety data.” The patentee sought to antedate a prior art reference based on priority claimed to a parent application. The parent application discloses an interface module that calculates insurance premiums and that this calculation is based on “rating factors.”
Issue(s): Whether the “interface module” has written-description support in the parent application.
Holding(s): No. “[A] ‘rating factor’ [as in the parent application] is broader than the two claim terms [in the child application]. [] The [child application’s] own written description refers to ‘a total discount [that] is based upon a calculation including … a rating factor, such as a safety score.’ … In short, the [parent] application’s disclosure of a component producing a rating factor does not, without more, imply disclosure of the particular types of rating factor required by the [child application’s] claims—namely, a driver safety score or driver safety data.”