Interference No. 103,303
different but patentably distinct from the copolymers embraced
by the party Asanuma et al.'s claims 9 and 11.
In its brief, the party Galimberti et al. argues that
example 3 of Asanuma et al.'s application does not contain
sufficient detail concerning the production of a copolymer
within the scope of Asanuma et al.'s claim 11. The fact that
example 3 may not contain sufficient detail to satisfy the
party Galimberti et al. is not considered relevant to the
issue of interference-in-fact, 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 for
judgment attacking the sufficiency of the application
disclosure. Moreover, it is well settled that a patent does
not have to be as detailed as a set of production
specifications in order to meet the enablement requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112. Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein's Sons,
Inc., 461 F.2d 66, 74, 174 USPQ 129, 134 (3d Cir.) cert.
denied, 409 U.S. 997,
175 USPQ 577 (1972). Likewise, the arguments raised by the
party Galimberti et al. concerning the inherency of example 3
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007