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 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007