Appeal No. 1997-2188 Application 08/137,440 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, in determining whether or not a disclosure is enabling, it has been consistently held that the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires nothing more than objective enablement. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 223, 169 USPQ at 369. In meeting the enablement requirement, an application need not teach, and preferably omits, that which is well-known in the art. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986). How such a teaching is set forth, whether by the use of illustrative examples or by broad descriptive terminology, is of no importance since a specification which teaches how to make and use the invention in terms which correspond in scope to the claims must be taken as complying with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements relied upon therein for enabling support. Marzocchi at 439 F.2d 223, 169 USPQ 369. A specification is considered to be enabling if a person of ordinary skill in the art could "make and use" the claimed invention without resort to "undue experimentation". In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970). "Whether making and using an invention would have 10Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007