by Koboldt, Veenhuizen, or Anderson, or of any results entered
into the database by Holtzman.
B. Discussion
1. The Huang request for reconsideration of the denial
of Huang preliminary motion 1
In its preliminary motion 1 (Paper 25), Huang moved for
judgment that all the claims of the Prasit application are
unpatentable to Prasit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 or 112, first
paragraph as lacking an adequate description of utility and
failing to be supported by an enabling disclosure. Huang
preliminary motion 1 was denied (Paper 35). At the request of
Huang, we reconsider its preliminary motion 1. We DENY the
preliminary motion.
A party filing a motion has the burden of proof to show
that it is entitled to the relief sought in the motion. 37
CFR
§ 1.637(a). Statements in the specification regarding
enablement are presumed correct unless there is reason to
question the objective truth of those statements. A finding
that a compound lacks utility or fails to teach how to use the
invention is appropriate only if one of ordinary skill in the
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007