Ex Parte SREDNI et al - Page 4


                  Appeal No.  2001-0918                                                           Page 4                   
                  Application No.  08/758,106                                                                              
                                                                                                                          
                  paragraph, a patent application must adequately disclose the claimed invention                           
                  so as to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention at the time the                    
                  application was filed without undue experimentation.  Enzo, 188 F.3d at 1371-72,                         
                  52 USPQ2d at 1136.  We note, however, that “nothing more than objective                                  
                  enablement is required, and therefore it is irrelevant whether this teaching is                          
                  provided through broad terminology or illustrative examples.”  In re Marzocchi,                          
                  439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971).  As set forth in In re                                 
                  Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993):                                   
                         When rejecting a claim under the enablement requirement of                                        
                         section 112, 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.                                                                                       
                         To assist the fact finder in meeting her initial burden our appellate                             
                  reviewing court has outlined a number of factors that should be considered.  As                          
                  set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 735, 736-37, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1402,                                
                  1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the factors to be considered in determining whether a                             
                  claimed invention is enabled throughout its scope without undue experimentation                          
                  include the quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or                            
                  guidance presented, the presence or absence of working examples, the nature                              
                  of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art, the                
                  predictability or unpredictability of the art, and the breadth of the claims.                            
                         On this record, the examiner provides no analysis of the Wands factors.                           
                  In addition, the examiner does not rely on any factual evidence to support her                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007