requirement.”). However, the policy reasons for applying such a requirement to original claims remain unconvincing. It is beyond dispute that original claims are part of a patent’s disclosure. See id. (Lourie, J., concurring) (“As for the proposition that an original claim is part of the written description, that is clear.”). And our predecessor court repeatedly held that, as part of the disclosure, “original claims constitute their own description.” In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 823 (CCPA 1980); see also In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973) (“Where the claim is an original claim, the underlying concept of insuring disclosure as of the filing date is satisfied, and the description requirement has likewise been held to be satisfied.”); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 1391 (CCPA 1973) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied, 480 F.2d 879, 879-80 (CCPA
holding a claim invalid under preaia 35 usc  112  4 for claiming subject matter that was nonoverlapping with the claim from which it depended holding that an original claim sufficiently described itself and that njothing more is necessary for compliance with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 usc  112 holding that only the words step for raise the presumption that 35 usc  112  6 applies holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that person as defined in njsa 112 does not include the state based on the fact that 1 the definition of person indicates that such term includes the state when it is used to designate the owner of property which may be the subject of an offense and 2 state and municipality are separately defined in njsa 112