REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Zerkowski et al SPIEGEL 112(1) USDA, ARS, OTT

The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language. In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 700 (CCPA 1979); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978). "[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263-64 (CCPA 1976).

Herschler, In re, 591 F.2d 693, 200 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . .2161.01, 2163, 2163.05

Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.05

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o) ,1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05

Ex Parte Kai et al WALSH 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Policicchio et al PAK 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Eshghi et al HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Nakahara et al HOMERE 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Coushaine KIMLIN 103(a) OSRAM SYLVANIA INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Culhane BARRETT 112(1)/103(a) BARRY L. KELMACHTER BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.

When rejecting a claim for lack of enablement, “the [United States Patent and Trademark Office] bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification of the application ….” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 (CCPA 1971)). The test for compliance with the enablement requirement is whether the disclosure, as filed, is sufficiently complete to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not “undue” if, e.g., it is merely routine, or if the specification provides a reasonable amount of guidance as to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed. Id. (quoting Ex parte Jackson, 217 USPQ 804, 807 (Bd. App. 1982)). The “undue experimentation” analysis involves the consideration of several factors, including: (1) the quantity of experimentation; (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. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737.

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2107.01, 2164.03, 2164.01(a) , 2164.04, 2164.05(a) , 2164.06(b) , 2164.08

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Barrett et al HAIRSTON 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

Ex Parte Chen et al BARRY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Usui et al HAHN 102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Simpson et al KRIVAK 103(a) BLANK ROME, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Takahashi et al STAICOVICI 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte McNeil STAICOVICI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY