Interference 103,482
subject matter which (1) would have been enabled by its
supporting specification as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, and (2) is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Party Ewen has the initial burden to support his motion
for judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a)(Paper No. 18). Ewen
argues that Dolle’s claims are unpatentable for essentially
three reasons. First, even assuming that the terms and
phrases
used in Dolle’s claims would have been considered in light of
Dolle’s specification and the prosecution history, Ewen argues
that the terms and phrases are so indefinite and
unconventionally utilized that persons having ordinary skill
in the art purportedly would not have understood and could not
have readily determined the metes and bounds of the subject
matter Dolle claims so to satisfy the requirements of the
second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Second, Ewen argues that the process
step “used to make” is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as a further limitation of the compounds and
catalysts claimed. Third, because Dolle’s claims purportedly
include impossibilities, Ewen argues that Dolle’s
specification could not have enabled persons skilled in the
110
Page: Previous 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007