In re Wright case brief summary
999 F.2d 1557 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Appellant filed claims to patent processes for producing vaccines against certain viruses, to patent vaccines produced by the processes, and to patent methods of using the vaccines. However, although appellant's specification provided a general description of the processes, vaccines and methods of use, he only provided one working example. Appellee Board thus rejected appellant's claims, since they were not supported by an enabling disclosure and since one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to practice the subject matter of the claims given the breadth of the claims, the unpredictability in the art and the limited guidance provided by appellant in his application.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed, since appellee set forth a reasonable explanation as to why the claim was not adequately enabled by the description of the invention in the specification and appellant failed to provide suitable proofs indicating that the specification was enabling.
CONCLUSION
The order sustaining rejection of appellant's claims was affirmed because appellant failed to provide proofs indicating his specification was enabling.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
999 F.2d 1557 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant sought review of an order of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences sustaining the rejection of his claims directed to
processes for producing vaccines against certain viruses as
unsupported by an enabling disclosure.CASE FACTS
Appellant filed claims to patent processes for producing vaccines against certain viruses, to patent vaccines produced by the processes, and to patent methods of using the vaccines. However, although appellant's specification provided a general description of the processes, vaccines and methods of use, he only provided one working example. Appellee Board thus rejected appellant's claims, since they were not supported by an enabling disclosure and since one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to practice the subject matter of the claims given the breadth of the claims, the unpredictability in the art and the limited guidance provided by appellant in his application.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed, since appellee set forth a reasonable explanation as to why the claim was not adequately enabled by the description of the invention in the specification and appellant failed to provide suitable proofs indicating that the specification was enabling.
CONCLUSION
The order sustaining rejection of appellant's claims was affirmed because appellant failed to provide proofs indicating his specification was enabling.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment