by Steve Driskill | Dec 10, 2012 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
The written description requirement has been consistently held to be separate from the enablement requirement. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could have made and used a particular combination of elements based on the applicant’s specification – the...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 13, 2012 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
While enablement is a fact specific inquiry and it may be difficult to take more from this case than the fact that pig testing can substitute for human testing in certain medical device technologies, it is noteworthy that the court recognized as well as sanctioned the...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 8, 2012 | [sub] best mode, Adequate Disclosure
Despite the seemingly clear statutory language that the written description “shall set forth” the best mode contemplated for carrying out the invention, this apparently requires only that the inventor not take any steps to “conceal” the best mode. Thus, best mode can...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2012 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
Others have suggested that this holding raises the bar for showing support for negative limitations by requiring an explicit “reason to exclude” the limitation. My understanding in reading the opinion was just the opposite – that even when there is no literal support...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 14, 2012 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
This is a cautionary tale about choosing broad claim language at the peril of losing any claim that cannot be enabled across its full scope of coverage. In general, I think it highlights the problems associated with claims that attempt to directly recite the result to...
