Appeal No. 96-0009
Application 08/104,417
(brief, pages 11-12). Appellants argue (brief, page 10) that
their specification (page 12, line 12 to page 15, line 1;
Examples II and III) shows that four compounds within the
scope of appellants’ claims produce some degree of inhibition
as indicated by the synaptosomal assay in the specification.
Appellants also argue (brief, page 10) that the first
declaration of Dr. Bridges, filed on October 8, 1992, provides
evidence of the effectiveness of L-trans-pyrrolidine-4-
sulfono-2-carboxylate for inhibiting D-aspartate uptake into
synaptosomes. The test results for these five inhibitors,
appellants argue, are sufficient to establish enablement of
appellants’ claimed invention (brief, page 10).
Regarding utility, a predecessor of our reviewing court
stated in In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391, 183 USPQ 288, 297
(CCPA 1974):
[A] specification which contains a disclosure of
utility which corresponds in scope to the subject
matter sought to be patented must be taken as
sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of
§ 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless
there is reason for one skilled in the art to
question the objective truth of the statement of
utility or its scope.
As for enablement, the court similarly stated in In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007