Ex Parte De La Monte et al - Page 6


                    Appeal No. 2006-0299                                                                        Page 6                        
                    Application No. 09/964,412                                                                                                

                    Cir. 1988).[2]  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 original).  In any case,                                             
                    as explained in PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1564,                                            
                    37 USPQ2d 1618, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 1996), undue experimentation has little to do                                             
                    with the quantity of experimentation; it is much more a function of the amount of                                         
                    guidance or direction provided:                                                                                           
                             [T]he question of undue experimentation is a matter of degree.  The                                              
                             fact that some experimentation is necessary does not preclude                                                    
                             enablement; what is required is that the amount of experimentation                                               
                             “must not be unduly extensive.”  Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DuPont                                                 
                             de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576, 224 USPQ 409, 413                                                         
                             (Fed. Cir. 1984).  The Patent and Trademark Office Board of                                                      
                             Appeals summarized the point [ ] when it stated:                                                                 
                                     The test is not merely quantitative, since a                                                             
                                     considerable amount of experimentation is                                                                
                                     permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the                                                          
                                     specification in question provides a reasonable                                                          
                                     amount of guidance with respect to the direction in                                                      
                                     which the experimentation should proceed to enable                                                       
                                     the determination of how to practice a desired                                                           
                                     embodiment of the invention claimed.                                                                     
                             Ex parte Jackson, 217 USPQ 804, 807 (1982).                                                                      



                                                                                                                                              
                             2 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  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007