Appeal No. 93-3623 Page 8
Application 07/629,690
Urdea
8. Urdea teaches a reactor system for degrading linear
polymers (Abstract), including proteins (3:39-46).
9. Appellant declares that "[t]he device, as disclosed in
the Urdea patent, is not useful for the sequencing of proteins."
10. Appellant knew, or should have known, base on a fair
reading of Urdea, that it teaches or suggests reactors for
degradation of polypeptides.
11. Appellant provides no objective basis for us to
evaluate his contention that "Urdea apparently was dismissed by
persons skilled in the protein sequencing art." (Decl. I at
¶ 11(ii)(c).)
12. To the extent that Appellant is urging that Urdea is
not an enabling reference (Decl. I at ¶ 11(ii)(c)), we note that
patent disclosures are not required to be production
specifications. Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.,
908 F.2d 931, 941, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We
further note that patents are presumed to be enabling. 35 U.S.C.
§ 282. Appellant provides no objective evidence that one skilled
in the art would not, at the time of his invention, have been
able to analyze peptides using an apparatus suggested by Urdea's
disclosure.
13. On balance, we find that Appellant's declaration
evidence is inconsistent with, and less credible than, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007