decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
From the Manual of Patent Examination Proceedure | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
From the Manual of Patent Examination Proceedure
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 02:30 PM EDT
MPEP section 2164 The Enablement Requirement [R-2]

The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the
invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and
use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.

The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in
such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is
to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a
meaningful way. The information contained in the disclosure of an application
must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make
and use the claimed invention.


> However, to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, it is not necessary
to “enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected,
commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.” CFMT,
Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1338, 68 USPQ2d 1940, 1944 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (an invention directed to a general system to improve the cleaning
process for semiconductor wafers was enabled by a disclosure showing
improvements in the overall system). < Detailed procedures for making and
using the invention may not be necessary if the description of the invention
itself is sufficient to permit those skilled in the art to make and use the
invention. A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling
disclosure.


Furthermore, when the subject matter is not in the specification portion of the
application as filed but is in the claims, the limitation in and of itself may
enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claim containing the
limitation. When claimed subject matter is only presented in the claims and not
in the specification portion of the application, the specification should be
objected to for lacking the requisite support for the claimed subject matter
using Form Paragraph 7.44. See MPEP § 2163.06. This is an objection to the
specification only and enablement issues should be treated separately.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )