Ex parte MENGER et al. - Page 6




             Appeal No. 95-0802                                                                                   
             Application 07/814,078                                                                               


             encompassed by the claims, does not constitute evidence to doubt Appellants’ assertions              
             regarding embodiments other than those demonstrated in the specification.  Moreover,                 
             given the straightforward, routine protocol outlined in the specification, we are in                 
             agreement with Appellants that the experimentation necessary to practice the claimed                 
             invention throughout its scope would not be undue, and that “one of skill in the art having          
             read this patent application, would nonetheless be armed with the skills required to                 
             undertake any screening or procedural methods required to carry out the claimed                      
             invention.”  Brief, page 14.  As explained in PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75          
             F.3d 1558, 1564, 37 USPQ2d 1618, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the test for undue                           
             experimentation is not merely quantitative:                                                          
                    In unpredictable art areas, this court has refused to find broad generic claims               
                    enabled by specifications that demonstrate the enablement of only one or a                    
                    few embodiments and do not demonstrate with reasonable specificity how to                     
                    make and use other potential embodiments across the full scope of the                         
                    claim.  See, e.g., In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1050-52, 29 USPQ2d                            
                    2010, 2013-15 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai 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:                                                                                       

                                                        6                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007