Ex Parte PAGE - Page 42




                       Finally, although not dispositive, because one can add claims to a pending                                     
                       application directed to adequately described subject matter, Sproule [the                                      
                       Gentry inventor] admitted at trial that he did not consider placing the controls                               
                       outside the console until he became aware that some of Gentry’s competitors                                    
                       were so locating the recliner controls.  Accordingly, when viewed in its entirety,                             
                       the disclosure is limited to sofas in which the recliner control is located on the                             
                       console.                                                                                                       
                       The decision in Gentry states that an applicant may add claims to a pending application                        
               so long as the subject matter of the added claims is adequately described.  We note that while the                     
               testimony of the Gentry inventor indicating that he had not originally considered including the                        
               added feature was considered by the Court, the testimony alone was not found “dispositive”.  At                        
               any rate, Glaxo has not directed us to testimony from a Cabilly inventor that would indicate that                      
               the inventor did not originally intend to include the subject matter of the ‘611 claims or Count 2                     
               in the Cabilly applications.                                                                                           
                       Glaxo argues that none of the working examples presented in the Cabilly applications are                       
               directed to the subject matter of the ‘611 claims or Count 2 (Paper 51 at 19).   However, Glaxo                        
               has not directed us to adequate authority to support the proposition that an application must                          
               contain a working example to comply with the written description requirement of 35 USC § 112,                          
               ¶ 1.21                                                                                                                 
                       3.      Therapeutic treatment                                                                                  
                       Glaxo argues that the Cabilly applications do not describe a method of treating a human                        
               suffering from a disease.  In particular, Glaxo argues that the portion of the Cabilly applications                    
               that discusses therapeutic treatment is referring to the prior art (Paper 49 at 12-14).                                


                       21      The lack of a working example is a factor to be considered in determining                              
               compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 USC § 112, ¶ 1, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,                            
               737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988),                                                                             
                                                                -42-                                                                  





Page:  Previous  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007