F.2d 1574, 15 USPQ2d 1333 (Fed.Cir.1990) (parent application’s disclosure of chemical species constituted 102(b) prior art against continuation-in-part (c-i-p) application on appeal, but did not provide sufficient written description to support c-i-p's claims to encompassing genus); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed.Cir.1989) (foreign priority application’s disclosure of chemical subgenus was insufficient written de scription to support genus claims of corresponding U.S. application): In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed.Cir.1989) (application in "clear compliance” with § 112 "written description" requirement with respect to claim limitation that microcapsules were “not permanently fixed”); Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d 993, 998, 6 USPQ2d 1709, 1714 (Fed.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int'l, Inc., 835
holding that written description requires more than a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention 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 generic interference count to scroll compressor supported by written description of foreign priority application the court stated a specification may within the meaning of 35 usc  112  1 contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without describing all species that claim encompasses holding the written description requirement satisfied by a representative number of sequences of the claimed genus of enzymes holding that the written description provided no evidence to indicate that   limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms