Ex Parte BONNEFOY - Page 4



             Appeal No. 2000-1783                                                               Page 4                
             Application No. 08/817,719                                                                               
             agent to CD23 other than anti-CD23 antibodies to treat autoimmune diseases.@  Id.                        
                    AThe first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification              
             of a patent enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the                
             claimed invention.  Although the statute does not say so, enablement requires that the                   
             specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without >undue                        
             experimentation.=  In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir.                        
             1988).  That some experimentation may be required is not fatal; the issue is whether                     
             the amount of experimentation is >undue.=@ In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d                     
             1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).1  Nevertheless, A[w]hen rejecting a                  
             claim under the enablement requirement of section 112,@ it is well settled that Athe 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).                                                                                   

                                                                                                                     
                    1                                                                                                 
                        Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would                            
                        require undue experimentation have been summarized by the                                     
                        board in Ex parte Forman [230 USPQ 546, 547 (BdPatAppInt                                      
                        1986)].  They include (1) the quantity of experimentation                                     
                        necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented,                                 
                        (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of                            
                        the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of                      
                        those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art,                      
                        and (8) the breadth of the claims (footnote omitted).                                         
                    In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                             





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007