Interference No. 103,891
Additionally, an anticipatory reference must be en-
abling, see Akzo N.V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n , 808
F.2d 1471, 1479, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 482 U.S. 909 (1987), so as to place one of ordinary skill
in possession of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus for either
party to prevail on the motion of unpatentability they must show
that Concept S was an enabling disclosure of the claimed subject
matter. This they have not done. In fact, Dr. Salvati does not
discuss whether the Concept S disclosure would have enabled one
of ordinary skill to practice the invention without undue
experimentation. Actually, Dr. Salvati does not mention undue
experimentation. This reason alone is enough to deny the motion
for unpatentability.
Furthermore, during cross-examination, Dr. Salvati
confirmed that the presentation included no discussion of re-
agents, locations of reagents, or what they may or may not have
been. No explanations of principles [of operation] were pre-
sented to those interviewed.
Flanders admits, when arguing in a different context,
that a particular type of positive control is needed to satisfy
the count. Flanders’ reply brief at 5. Flanders further admits
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007