Appeal No. 98-1012
Serial No. 08/117,342
USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is the examiner=s burden to
show that one skilled in the art would have to resort to undue
experimentation in order to practice the invention as broadly
claimed. Here, no persuasive reason has been given why the
specification does not reasonably enable one skilled in the
art to practice the invention as broadly as it is claimed and
without undue experimentation. See In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d
220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971).
The specification teaches an Example (page 9) which
describes a medium formulation where A5 ml of a freshly-
prepared 1 mg/ml sterile-filtered solution of Cefsulodin (5
g/ml final concentration) were added per liter of tempered
agar medium@ (specification, p. 10, lines 21-23). The other
agents and their concentrations in the medium are also clearly
explained. Furthermore, the mixing technology that the example
and alternatives (see specification, pages 17-22) employ is
not an unpredictable art. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007