Ex Parte JARVEST et al - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2000-0591                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/311,291                                                                                 
              proper for the PTO to require evidence that such an unprecedented feat has actually                        
              been accomplished” (Id., page 4).                                                                          
                     In our view, this is putting the cart before the horse.  As stated in In re Marzocchi,              
              439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA 1971):                                                       
                     [A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and                            
                     process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in                              
                     scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought                            
                     to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling                                     
                     requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt                         
                     the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be                               
                     relied on for enabling support.                                                                     
                     In other words, “[w]hen rejecting a claim under the enablement requirement of                       
              section 112,” it is well settled that “the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a                  
              reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by                      
              that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the                   
              specification of the application; this includes, of course, providing sufficient reasons for               
              doubting any assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.”  In re                        
              Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).                                        
                     Thus, the threshold issue here is not whether appellants have established that                      
              their disclosure is broadly enabling for the scope of the claims, rather, the issue is                     
              whether the PTO has met its “initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as                   
              to why” it is not.  Keeping this in mind, we consider some of the specific issues raised                   
              by the examiner in support of his position.                                                                
                     The examiner argues that “[a]ntiviral agents . . . operate by inhibiting one or more                
              of the enzymes that are essential for the vital tasks of the virus, such as entering a cell,               
              or replicating,” but “[viral] families are usually not organized on the basis of their                     
                                                           5                                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007