Interference No. 103,303
To the extent that the party Galimberti et al. argues the
lack of detail in Example 3 of Asanuma et al.'s specification,
the argument is not considered relevant, since the Asanuma et
al. application disclosure is presumed to comply with the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, with respect
to enablement and written description, especially where the
party Galimberti et al. filed no preliminary motion attacking
the sufficiency of the disclosure. As we noted above, it is
settled that a patent does not have to be as detailed as a set
of production specifications to meet the enablement
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Trio Process Corp. v. L.
Goldstein's Sons, Inc., 461 F.2d at 74, 174 USPQ at 134.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the party
Galimberti et al. has not sustained its burden to show that an
interference-in-fact does not exist.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
Since we have held that an interference-in-fact exists,
it is not necessary for us to determine whether the party
Galimberti et al.'s specification contains a written
description for the limitation "the difference between the
amount of comonomer present in the gas phase and the amount of
comonomer in said composition is between 13% to 23% less in
-28-
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007