Ex parte REINHERZ et al. - Page 12




                 Appeal No. 94-1483                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 07/695,141                                                                                                             


                          Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1212-14, 18 USPQ2d                                                                         
                          1016, 1026-28 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 856                                                                         
                          (1991); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 496, 20 USPQ2d at 1445.                                                                      
                          Enablement is lacking in those cases, the court has                                                                           
                          explained, because the undescribed embodiments cannot be                                                                      
                          made, based on the disclosure in the specification,                                                                           
                          without undue experimentation.  But the question of undue                                                                     
                          experimentation is a matter of degree.  The fact that                                                                         
                          some experimentation is necessary does not preclude                                                                           
                          enablement; what is required is that the amount of                                                                            
                          experimentation "must not be unduly extensive."  Atlas                                                                        
                          Powder Co., v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d                                                                         
                          1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  The                                                                          
                          Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals summarized                                                                       
                          the point well when it stated:                                                                                                
                                   The test is not merely quantitative, since a                                                                         
                                   considerable amount of experimentation is                                                                            
                                   permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the                                                                      
                                   specification in question provides a reasonable                                                                      
                                   amount of guidance with respect to the direction                                                                     
                                   in which the experimentation should proceed to                                                                       
                                   enable the determination of how to practice a                                                                        
                                   desired embodiment of the invention claimed.                                                                         
                          Ex parte Jackson, 217 USPQ 804, 807 (1982).                                                                                   
                 On these facts, we believe that a hypothethical person skilled                                                                         
                 in the art could not make and use the claimed invention2                                                                               


                          2Though we have discussed only claims 3, 4 and 14 in                                                                          
                 setting forth our reasons in support of this rejection,                                                                                
                 nevertheless, the rejection extends to all claims pending.  We                                                                         
                 have reviewed each claim and find that no claim further limits                                                                         
                 the independent claims in a substantive manner regarding the                                                                           
                 scope of the Ti " and $ subunit or the Ti ( and * subunit                                                                              
                 polypeptides or corresponding nucleic acids.  Rather, the                                                                              
                 dependent claims are directed to other peripheral aspects of                                                                           
                 the invention beyond the polypeptides and nucleic acid                                                                                 
                 sequences required to make and use the claimed invention                                                                               
                 throughout its scope.                                                                                                                  
                                                                        -12-                                                                            




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007