Appeal 2007-2681
Application 10/680,676
This result does not comport with the quid pro quo underlying the
patent system. “Patent protection is granted in return for an enabling
disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that
may or may not be workable. . . . Tossing out the mere germ of an idea does
not constitute enabling disclosure.” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, Appellants have disclosed a method for using digital image data
to classify plant embryos according to their likelihood to germinate. They
have not, however, disclosed a method for using digital image data to
classify plant embryos according to any other quantifiable characteristics.
With respect to classifying embryos according to pathogen resistance,
drought resistance, etc., the specification discloses nothing more than a
general idea that may or may not be workable. That does not constitute an
enabling disclosure and we affirm the rejection of claims 1-14 for lack of
enablement.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection for lack of written description but affirm the
rejection of claims 1-14 for lack of enablement.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013