BUCHWALD et al v. COLLINS et al v. DRUMM et al v. IANNUZZI et al v. KEREM et al v. RIORDAN et al v. ROMMENS et al v. TSUI - Page 12




                  Interference Nos. 103,882, 103,933, and 104,228                                          Consolidated Judgment                          
                  Gregory v. Tsui et al.                                                                                      Page 12                     
                  scope of the count.16  The reason for this difference is that neither party need be able to claim the                                   
                  entire scope of the count.  Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 1.601(f) (last sentence describing a "phantom count").                                      
                  Hence, the purpose of the constructive reduction to practice is to show an anticipation of the                                          
                  count within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(g), not to show that the party is entitled to a claim                                         
                  with the full scope of the count.  A claim is anticipated by disclosure in the prior art of a single                                    
                  embodiment within the scope of the  claim, even if the claim encompasses more than that                                                 
                  embodiment.  Nevertheless, the embodiment must be adequately described and enabled to be                                                
                  counted as an anticipation.  E.g., United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50 (1966) (inoperable                                           
                  embodiments do not anticipate); In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533, 226 USPQ 619, 621 (Fed.                                               
                  Cir. 1985) ("well-settled" that an enabling disclosure is required for anticipation).  A disclosure is                                  
                  presumed to be enabling, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1356-57, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1466 (Fed.                                            
                  Cir. 1999), absent some clear indication to the contrary, id. at 1360, 49 USPQ2d at 1469.  While                                        
                  it is true that Tsui relies heavily on "prophetic" examples, use of a prophetic example does not                                        
                  automatically make a disclosure non-enabling.  The burden is on the movant to provide and                                               
                  explain evidence that the prophetic examples together with other parts of the disclosure are not                                        
                  enabling.  Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ                                             
                  409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                                                                              
                           Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue                                               
                           experimentation ... 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,                                     


                           16  Gregory acknowledges as much.  E.g., 882 Paper No. 127 at 13-14.                                                           





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007