Appeal No. 2001-0693 Page 5
Application No. 08/898,300
Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576-77, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984), where
the court stated:
Even if some of the claimed combinations were inoperative, the claims are
not necessarily invalid. "It is not a function of the claims to specifically
exclude . . . possible inoperative substances . . . .” In re Dinh-Nguyen,
492 F.2d 856, 858-59, 181 USPQ 46, 48 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis
omitted). Accord, In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1265, 180 USPQ 789,
793 (CCPA 1974); In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1242, 176 USPQ 331,
334-35 (CCPA 1973). Of course, if the number of inoperative
combinations becomes significant, and in effect forces one of ordinary
skill in the art to experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed
invention, the claims might indeed be invalid. See, e.g., In re Cook, 439
F.2d 730, 735, 169 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1971).
Again, absent a fact-based explanation from the examiner why the number of
possible inoperative embodiments is significant, we do not find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of non-enablement.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
William F. Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Donald E. Adams )
)) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge
)
) INTERFERENCES
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Brenda H. Jarrell, Esq.
Choate, Hall & Stewart
Exchange Place
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007