Ex Parte Svendenius et al - Page 4

           Appeal 2007-1454                                                                         
           Application 11/088,528                                                                   

        1  Accordingly, it is our finding that claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 18-22, 25, 26, 30-35, 38      
        2  and 42-46 do not lack novelty over the Matsumoto reference.                              
        3                             PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                             
        4        “Enablement requires that ‘the prior art reference must teach one of ordinary      
        5  skill in the art to make or carry out the claimed invention without undue                
        6  experimentation.’”  Elan Pharms., Inc. v. Mayo Found., 346 F.3d 1051, 1054, 68           
        7  USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (remanding the case to the district court for a       
        8  determination of whether the prior art reference enabled persons of ordinary skill       
        9  to make the invention without undue experimentation)(citing Minnesota Mining             
       10  and Manufacturing Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301, 64 USPQ2d 1270,             
       11  1278 (Fed. Cir. 2002) and Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362,            
       12  1369, 52 USPQ2d 1129, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(“Whether undue experimentation               
       13  would have been required to make and use an invention, and thus whether a                
       14  disclosure is enabling under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is a question of law that we          
       15  review de novo, based on underlying factual inquiries that we review for clear           
       16  error.”)).                                                                               
       17        The factual premises of the enablement analysis were addressed in In re            
       18  Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  The court               
       19  explaining that determination of whether the requisite amount of experimentation         
       20  is undue may include consideration of:                                                   
       21        (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or      
       22        guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4)           
       23        the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill
       24        of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8)
       25        the breadth of the claims.                                                         
       26                                                                                           
       27        See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213, 18 USPQ2d               
       28  1016, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating that the Wands factors are illustrative, not        

                                                 4                                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013