Appeal 2007-1348
Application 10/650,253
1 3% is not the same as substantially pure azithromycin Form F. Li v. Singer,
2 Interference 105,366, Paper 71 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. Nov. 8, 2007).
3 Curatolo
4 We find it unnecessary to discuss what is described by Curatolo.
5
6 E. Principles of law
7 Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest reasonable
8 construction consistent with the specification. Burlington Industries v.
9 Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
10 In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA
11 1969).
12 During the examination of a patent application, an examiner has an
13 initial burden of establishing some objective basis for questioning
14 enablement of a specification. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ
15 367 (CCPA 1971). On appeal from a lack of enablement rejection, the
16 appellant bears the burden of showing that the examiner did not have a
17 sufficient objective basis to legally support the rejection.
18 The fact that a claim may include inoperative embodiments does not
19 per se render the claim unpatentable under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
20 § 112. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976).
21 An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 102(e) requires a prior art
22 reference to describe every limitation in a claim—either explicitly or
23 inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
24 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013