2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors [R-01.2024]

In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is “reasonable” or is “undue.” Consistent with Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023), the Wands factors continue to provide a framework for assessing enablement in a utility application or patent, regardless of technology area. See Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 89 FR 1563 (January 10, 2024). These factors include, but are not limited to:

• (A) The breadth of the claims;
• (B) The nature of the invention;
• (C) The state of the prior art;
• (D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
• (E) The level of predictability in the art;
• (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
• (G) The existence of working examples; and
• (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.

In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (reversing the PTO’s determination that claims directed to methods for detection of hepatitis B surface antigens did not satisfy the enablement requirement). In Wands, the court noted that there was no disagreement as to the facts, but merely a disagreement as to the interpretation of the data and the conclusion to be made from the facts. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-40, 8 USPQ2d at 1403-07. The court held that the specification was enabling with respect to the claims at issue and found that “there was considerable direction and guidance” in the specification; there was “a high level of skill in the art at the time the application was filed;” and “all of the methods needed to practice the invention were well known.” 858 F.2d at 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1406. After considering all the factors related to the enablement issue, the court concluded that “it would not require undue experimentation to obtain antibodies needed to practice the claimed invention.” Id., 8 USPQ2d at 1407.

It is improper to conclude that a disclosure is not enabling based on an analysis of only one of the above factors while ignoring one or more of the others. The examiner’s analysis must consider all the evidence related to each of these factors, and any conclusion of nonenablement must be based on the evidence as a whole. 858 F.2d at 737, 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1404, 1407.

A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The Wands factors are probative of the essential inquiry in determining whether one must engage in more than a reasonable amount of experimentation. The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the above noted factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404. These factual considerations are discussed more fully in MPEP § 2164.08 (scope or breadth of the claims), § 2164.05(a) (nature of the invention and state of the prior art), § 2164.05(b) (level of one of ordinary skill), § 2164.03 (level of predictability in the art and amount of direction provided by the inventor), § 2164.02 (the existence of working examples) and § 2164.06 (quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure).

The specification may require a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use the invention and what is reasonable will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art. Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 596, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023). For example, “it may suffice to give an example (or a few examples) if the specification also discloses some general quality . . . running through the class that gives it a peculiar fitness for the particular purpose” and “disclosing that general quality may reliably enable a person skilled in the art to make and use all of what is claimed, not merely a subset.” Id. at 611 (internal quotations omitted). However, while the specification in Amgen identified 26 exemplary antibodies that performed the claimed function by their amino acid sequences, the claims at issue were directed to a class which included “a ‘vast’ number of additional antibodies” that Amgen had not described by their amino acid sequences. Id. at 613. The Court found that Amgen sought to monopolize an entire class by their function, even though that class was much broader than the 26 exemplary antibodies disclosed by their amino acid structure. Id. at 613.

In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which the Supreme Court affirmed, the Federal Circuit explicitly applied the Wands factors to assess whether the specification of Amgen’s patent provided sufficient enablement, for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention. The court relied on evidence showing that the scope of the claims encompassed millions of antibodies and that it was necessary to screen each candidate antibody in order to determine whether it met the functional limitations of the claim. Id. at 1088. Consequently, the Federal Circuit concluded that there was a lack of enablement. See also the following cases across various technology areas: McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 959 F.3d 1091, 2020 USPQ2d 10550 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 107 USPQ2d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 928 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019); and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 2019 USPQ2d 415844 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

2164.01(b) How to Make the Claimed Invention [R-08.2012]

As long as the specification discloses at least one method for making and using the claimed invention that bears a reasonable correlation to the entire scope of the claim, then the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 is satisfied. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). Failure to disclose other methods by which the claimed invention may be made does not render a claim invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1533, 3 USPQ2d 1737, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 954 (1987).

Naturally, for unstable and transitory chemical intermediates, the “how to make” requirement does not require that the applicant teach how to make the claimed product in stable, permanent or isolatable form. In re Breslow, 616 F.2d 516, 521, 205 USPQ 221, 226 (CCPA 1980).

A key issue that can arise when determining whether the specification is enabling is whether the starting materials or apparatus necessary to make the invention are available. In the biotechnical area, this is often true when the product or process requires a particular strain of microorganism and when the microorganism is available only after extensive screening.

The court in In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 991, 169 USPQ 723, 727 (CCPA 1971), made clear that if the practice of a method requires a particular apparatus, the application must provide a sufficient disclosure of the apparatus if the apparatus is not readily available. The same can be said if certain chemicals are required to make a compound or practice a chemical process. In re Howarth, 654 F.2d 103, 105, 210 USPQ 689, 691 (CCPA 1981).

2164.01(c) How to Use the Claimed Invention [R-08.2017]

If a statement of utility in the specification contains within it a connotation of how to use, and/or the art recognizes that standard modes of administration are known and contemplated, 35 U.S.C. 112 is satisfied. In re Johnson, 282 F.2d 370, 373, 127 USPQ 216, 219 (CCPA 1960); In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80, 87, 144 USPQ 637, 643 (CCPA 1965); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566, 34 USPQ2d 1436, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

For example, it is not necessary to specify the dosage or method of use if it is known to one skilled in the art that such information could be obtained without undue experimentation. If one skilled in the art, based on knowledge of compounds having similar physiological or biological activity, would be able to discern an appropriate dosage or method of use without undue experimentation, this would be sufficient to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The applicant need not demonstrate that the invention is completely safe. See also MPEP §§ 2107.01 and 2107.03.

When a compound or composition claim is limited by a particular use, enablement of that claim should be evaluated based on that limitation. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claiming a chimeric gene capable of being expressed in any cyanobacterium and thus defining the claimed gene by its use).

In contrast, when a compound or composition claim is not limited by a recited use, any enabled use that would reasonably correlate with the entire scope of that claim is sufficient to preclude a rejection for nonenablement based on how to use. If multiple uses for claimed compounds or compositions are disclosed in the application, then an enablement rejection must include an explanation, sufficiently supported by the evidence, why the specification fails to enable each disclosed use. In other words, if any use is enabled when multiple uses are disclosed, the application is enabling for the claimed invention.

2164.05(a) Specification Must Be Enabling as of the Filing Date [R-07.2022]

Whether the specification would have been enabling as of the filing date involves consideration of the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of skill in the art. The initial inquiry is into the nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains. The nature of the invention becomes the backdrop to determine the state of the art and the level of skill possessed by one skilled in the art.

The state of the prior art is what one skilled in the art would have known, at the time the application was filed, about the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains. The relative skill of those in the art refers to the skill of those in the art in relation to the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains at the time the application was filed. See MPEP § 2164.05(b). See Pac. Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc., 996 F.3d 1342, 1352, 2021 USPQ2d 519 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The state of the prior art provides evidence for the degree of predictability in the art and is related to the amount of direction or guidance needed in the specification as filed to meet the enablement requirement. The state of the prior art is also related to the need for working examples in the specification.

The state of the art for a given technology is not static in time. It is entirely possible that a disclosure which would not have been enabled if filed on January 2, 1990 might be enabled if the same disclosure had been filed on January 2, 1996. Therefore, the state of the prior art must be evaluated for each application based on its filing date.

35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the specification to be enabling only to a person “skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected.” In general, the pertinent art should be defined in terms of the problem to be solved rather than in terms of the technology area, industry, trade, etc. for which the invention is used.

The specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc.v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBHv. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

The state of the art existing at the filing date of the application is used to determine whether a particular disclosure is enabling as of the filing date. Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Stating that “a patent document cannot enable technology that arises after the date of application.”). Information published for the first time after the filing date generally cannot be used to show what was known at the time of filing. In reGunn, 537 F.2d 1123, 1128, 190 USPQ 402,405-06 (CCPA 1976); In re Budnick, 537 F.2d 535, 538, 190 USPQ 422, 424 (CCPA 1976) (In general, if an applicant seeks to use a patent to prove the state of the art for the purpose of the enablement requirement, the patent must have an issue date earlier than the effective filing date of the application.). While a later dated publication cannot supplement an insufficient disclosure in a prior dated application to make it enabling, an applicant can offer the testimony of an expert based on the publication as evidence of the level of skill in the art at the time the application was filed. Gould v.Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074, 1077, 3 USPQ2d 1302, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

In general, the examiner should not use post-filing date references to demonstrate that a patent is not enabled. Exceptions to this rule could occur if a later-dated reference provides evidence of what one skilled in the art would have known on or before the effective filing date of the patent application. In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605, 194 USPQ 527, 537 (CCPA 1977). If a publication demonstrates that those of ordinary skill in the art would find that a particular invention was not enabled years after the filing date, the publication would be evidence that the claimed invention was not possible at the time of filing. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513-14 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (The court found that an article published 5 years after the filing date of the application adequately supported the examiner’s position that the physiological activity of certain viruses was sufficiently unpredictable so that a person skilled in the art would not have believed that the success with one virus and one animal could be extrapolated successfully to all viruses with all living organisms. Accordingly, the court held that the applicant’s earlier-filed claims not limited to the specific virus or the specific animal were nonenabled).

2164.05(b) Specification Must Be Enabling to Persons Skilled in the Art [R-01.2024]

The relative skill of those in the art refers to the skill level of those in the art in the technological field to which the claimed invention pertains. See United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1370, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (The court found that the claims directed to administration of treprostinil to treat all five types of pulmonary hypertension, which were construed to not require safety and efficacy, were adequately enabled by the specification which described administration, concentrations and dosages as well as an open label study despite potential safety concerns associated with one type of pulmonary hypotension. The record included evidence that ”a skilled artisan would understand that the claimed administration of treprostinil would vasodilate the pulmonary vasculature, improve hemodynamics, and in this way for a single dose, treat a patient’s elevated pulmonary blood pressure independent of the type (i.e., group) of pulmonary hypertension patient.”).

Where different arts are involved in the invention, the specification is enabling if it enables persons skilled in each art to carry out the aspect of the invention applicable to their specialty. In reNaquin, 398 F.2d 863, 866, 158 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1968). See Pac. Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc., 996 F.3d 1342, 1352, 2021 USPQ2d 519 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (The court found that undue experimentation was required to enable the full scope of the claims where there was ample evidence that relevant artisans would not know how to perform the claimed invention for more than a narrow range of the claimed scope of invention).

When an invention, in its different aspects, involves distinct arts, the specification is enabling if it enables those skilled in each art, to carry out the aspect proper to their specialty. “If two distinct technologies are relevant to an invention, then the disclosure will be adequate if a person of ordinary skill in each of the two technologies could practice the invention from the disclosures.” Technicon Instruments Corp.v.Alpkem Corp., 664 F. Supp. 1558, 1578, 2 USPQ2d 1729, 1742 (D. Ore. 1986), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part, 837 F. 2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (unpublished opinion), appeal after remand, 866 F. 2d 417, 9 USPQ 2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In Ex parteZechnall, 194 USPQ 461 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1973), the Board stated “appellants’ disclosure must be held sufficient if it would enable a person skilled in the electronic computer art, in cooperation with a person skilled in the fuel injection art, to make and use appellants’ invention.” 194 USPQ at 461.

2164.06(a) Examples of Enablement Issues-Missing Information [R-08.2017]

It is common that doubt arises about enablement because information is missing about one or more essential claim elements or relationships between elements which one skilled in the art could not develop without undue experimentation. In such a case, the examiner should specifically identify what information is missing and why the missing information is needed to provide enablement.

Enablement serves the dual function of ensuring adequate disclosure of the claimed invention and of preventing claims broader than the disclosed invention. Broad claim language is used at the peril of losing any claim that cannot be enabled across its full scope. For example, in MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., 687 F.3d 1377, 103 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the claim recited a change in resistance by at least 10% at room temperature, but the specification contained no showing that the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been able to achieve resistive changes in values that greatly exceed 10% without undue experimentation (noting that it took nearly 12 years of experimentation to achieve modern values above 600%). Similarly in Auto. Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283, 84 USPQ2d 1108, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2007), a claim limitation means responsive to the motion of a mass was construed to include both mechanical and electronic side impact sensors for performing the function of initiating an occupant protection apparatus. The specification did not disclose any details or circuitry for electronic side impact sensors, and thus, failed to apprise one of ordinary skill how to make and use the electronic sensor.

A disclosure of an electrical circuit apparatus, depicted in the drawings by block diagrams with functional labels, was held to be nonenabling in In reGunn, 537 F.2d 1123, 1129, 190 USPQ 402, 406 (CCPA 1976), where there was no indication in the specification as to whether the parts represented by boxes were “off the shelf” or must be specifically constructed or modified for applicant’s system. Also there were no details in the specification of how the parts should be interconnected, timed and controlled so as to obtain the specific operations desired by the applicant. In In reDonohue, 550 F.2d 1269, 193 USPQ 136 (CCPA 1977), the lack of enablement was caused by lack of information in the specification about a single block labeled “LOGIC” in the drawings. See also Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 57 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Claims directed to a method of determining the location of a horizontal borehole in the earth failed to comply with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112 because certain computer programming details used to perform claimed method were not disclosed in the specification, and the record showed that a person of skill in art would not understand how to “compare” or “rescale” data as recited in the claims in order to perform the claimed method.).

In reGhiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971), involved a method of facilitating transfers from one subset of program instructions to another which required modification of prior art “overlap mode” computers. The Board rejected the claims on the basis that, inter alia, the disclosure was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph and was affirmed. The Board focused on the fact that the drawings were “block diagrams, i.e., a group of rectangles representing the elements of the system, functionally labeled and interconnected by lines.” 442 F.2d at 991, 169 USPQ at 727. The specification did not particularly identify each of the elements represented by the blocks or the relationship therebetween, nor did it specify particular apparatus intended to carry out each function. The Board further questioned whether the selection and assembly of the required components could be carried out routinely by persons of ordinary skill in the art.

An adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function. The claim before the court in In reScarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974), was directed to a system which comprised several component parts (e.g., computer, timing and control mechanism, A/D converter, etc.) only by generic name and overall ultimate function. The court concluded that there was not an enabling disclosure because the specification did not describe how “complex elements known to perform broadly recited functions in different systems would be adaptable for use in Appellant’s particular system with only a reasonable amount of experimentation” and that “an unreasonable amount of work would be required to arrive at the detailed relationships appellant says that he has solved.” 500 F.2d at 566, 182 USPQ at 302.

Patent applications involving living biological products, such as microorganisms, as critical elements in the process of making the invention, present a unique question with regard to availability. For example, in In reArgoudelis, 434 F.2d 1390, 168 USPQ 99 (CCPA 1970), the court considered the enablement of claims drawn to a fermentative method of producing two novel antibiotics using a specific microorganism and claims to the novel antibiotics so produced. As stated by the court, “a unique aspect of using microorganisms as starting materials is that a sufficient description of how to obtain the microorganism from nature cannot be given.” 434 F.2d at 1392, 168 USPQ at 102. It was determined by the court that availability of the biological product via a public depository provided an acceptable means of meeting the written description and the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.

To satisfy the enablement requirement a deposit must be made “prior to issue” but need not be made prior to filing the application. In reLundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 1223, 227 USPQ 90, 95 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

The availability requirement of enablement must also be considered in light of the scope or breadth of the claim limitations. The Board considered this issue in an application which claimed a fermentative method using microorganisms belonging to a species. Applicants had identified three novel individual strains of microorganisms that were related in such a way as to establish a new species of microorganism, a species being a broader classification than a strain. The three specific strains had been appropriately deposited. The issue before the Board focused on whether the specification enabled one skilled in the art to make any member of the species other than the three strains which had been deposited. The Board concluded that the verbal description of the species was inadequate to allow a skilled artisan to make any and all members of the claimed species. Ex parteJackson, 217 USPQ 804, 806 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982).

See MPEP § 2402 - § 2411.03 for a detailed discussion of the deposit rules. See MPEP § 2411.01 for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 based on deposit issues.

See MPEP § 2107 - § 2107.03 for a discussion of the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in drug cases.

2164.06(b) Examples of Enablement Issues — Biological and Chemical Cases [R-10.2019]

The following summaries should not be relied on to support a case of lack of enablement without carefully reading the case.

• (A) In Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court held that two patents with claims directed to genetic antisense technology (which aims to control gene expression in a particular organism), were invalid because the breadth of enablement was not commensurate in scope with the claims. Both specifications disclosed applying antisense technology in regulating three E. coli genes. Despite the limited disclosures, the specifications asserted that the “[t]he practices of this invention are generally applicable with respect to any organism containing genetic material which is capable of being expressed … such as bacteria, yeast, and other cellular organisms.” Thus, the court construed the claims to encompass the application of antisense methodology in a broad range of organisms. Ultimately, the court relied on the fact that (1) the amount of direction presented and the number of working examples provided in the specification were very narrow compared to the wide breadth of the claims at issue, (2) antisense gene technology was highly unpredictable, and (3) the amount of experimentation required to adapt the practice of creating antisense DNA from E. coli to other types of cells was quite high, especially in light of the record, which included notable examples of the inventor’s own failures to control the expression of other genes in E. coli and other types of cells. Thus, the teachings set forth in the specification provided no more than a “plan” or “invitation” for those of skill in the art to experiment using the technology in other types of cells.
• (B) In In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Wright's 1983 application disclosed a vaccine against the RNA tumor virus known as Prague Avian Sarcoma Virus, a member of the Rous Associated Virus family. Wright claimed a vaccine “comprising an immunologically effective amount” of a viral expression product using functional language. Id. at 1559, 27 USPQ2d at 1511. The examiner rejected Wright's claims covering all RNA viruses as well as all avian RNA viruses. The examiner provided a teaching that, in 1988, a vaccine for another retrovirus (i.e., HIV) remained an intractable problem. This evidence, along with evidence that the RNA viruses were a diverse and complicated genus, convinced the Federal Circuit that the invention was not enabled for either all retroviruses or even for avian retroviruses.
• (C) In In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Goodman's 1985 application functionally claimed a method of producing protein in plant cells by expressing a foreign gene. The court stated that “[n]aturally, the specification must teach those of skill in the art ‘how to make and use the invention as broadly as it is claimed.’” Id. at 1050, 29 USPQ2d at 2013. Although protein expression in dicotyledonous plant cells was enabled, the claims covered protein expression in any plant cell. The examiner provided evidence that even as late as 1987, use of the claimed method in monocot plant cells was not enabled. Id. at 1051, 29 USPQ2d at 2014.
• (D) In In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991), the court found that several claims to a chimeric gene capable of being expressed in Cyanobacteria cells were not supported by an enabling disclosure. The court determined that claims at issue were not limited to any particular genus or species of cyanobacteria and the specification mentioned nine genera and the working examples employed one species of cyanobacteria. The court then reasoned that the claims were not enabled after “[t]aking into account the relatively incomplete understanding of the biology of cyanobacteria as of appellants’ filing date, as well as the limited disclosure by appellants of the particular cyanobacterial genera operative in the claimed invention....”
• (E) In In re Colianni, 561 F.2d 220, 222-23, 195 USPQ 150, 152 (CCPA 1977), the court affirmed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claims were directed to a method of mending a fractured bone by applying “sufficient” ultrasonic energy to the bone, but applicant’s specification did not define what constituted a “sufficient” dosage or teach one of ordinary skill how to select the appropriate intensity, frequency, or duration of the ultrasonic energy.

• (A) In PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 75 F.3d 1558, 1564, 37 USPQ2d 1618, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the court found PPG’s claims to a UV-absorbing, ceramide-free glass enabled, even though PPG’s specification included several examples in which faulty UV transmittance data made it appear as though the production of a cerium oxide-free glass satisfying the UV transmittance limitation would be difficult, because the specification indicated that such glass could be made. The specification was also found to indicate how to minimize the cerium content while maintaining low UV transmittance.
• (B) In In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the court reversed the rejection for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, concluding that undue experimentation would not be required to practice the claimed immunoassay using monoclonal antibodies to detect hepatitis B-surface antigen (HBsAg). The court found that the nature of monoclonal antibody technology was such that experiments first involve the entire attempt to make monoclonal hybridomas to determine which ones secrete antibody with the desired characteristics. The court found that the specification also provided considerable direction and guidance on how to practice the claimed invention and presented working examples, that all of the methods needed to practice the invention were well known, and that there was a high level of skill in the art at the time the application was filed. Furthermore, the applicant carried out the entire procedure for making a monoclonal antibody against HBsAg three times and each time was successful in producing at least one antibody which fell within the scope of the claims.
• (C) In In re Bundy, 642 F.2d 430, 434, 209 USPQ 48, 51-52 (CCPA 1981), the court ruled that appellant’s disclosure was sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to use the claimed analogs of naturally occurring prostaglandins even though the specification lacked any examples of specific dosages, because the specification taught that the novel prostaglandins had certain pharmacological properties and possessed activity similar to known E-type prostaglandins.

2164.06(c) Examples of Enablement Issues – Computer Programming Cases [R-10.2019]

To establish a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of a disclosure, the examiner must present a factual analysis of a disclosure to show that a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation.

In computer applications, it is not unusual for the claimed invention to involve two areas of prior art or more than one technology, e.g., an appropriately programmed computer and an area of application of said computer. White Consol. Indus. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., 214 USPQ 796, 821 (S.D.Mich. 1982). In regard to the “skilled in the art” standard, in cases involving both the art of computer programming, and another technology, the examiner must recognize that the knowledge of persons skilled in both technologies is the appropriate criteria for determining sufficiency. See In re Naquin, 398 F.2d 863, 158 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1968); In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); White Consol. Indus., 214 USPQ at 822, aff’d on related grounds, 713 F.2d 788, 218 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

In a typical computer application, system components are often represented in a “block diagram” format, i.e., a group of hollow rectangles representing the elements of the system, functionally labeled, and interconnected by lines. Such block diagram computer cases may be categorized into (A) systems that include but are more comprehensive than a computer and (B) systems wherein the block elements are totally within the confines of a computer. For instances where a computer invention is claimed using functional language, that is not limited to a specific structure, see MPEP § 2161.01 or MPEP § 2181, subsection II.B.2(a).

The first category of such block diagram cases involves systems which include a computer as well as other system hardware and/or software components. In order to meet the burden of establishing a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of such disclosure, the examiner should initiate a factual analysis of the system by focusing on each of the individual block element components. More specifically, such an inquiry should focus on the diverse functions attributed to each block element as well as the teachings in the specification as to how such a component could be implemented. If based on such an analysis, the examiner can reasonably contend that more than routine experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a component or components, then enablement of the component or components should specifically be challenged by the examiner as part of a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, rejection. Additionally, the examiner should determine whether certain of the hardware or software components depicted as block elements are themselves complex assemblages which have widely differing characteristics and which must be precisely coordinated with other complex assemblages. Under such circumstances, a reasonable basis may exist for challenging such a functional block diagram form of disclosure. See In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971) and In re Brown, supra. Even if the applicant has cited prior art patents or publications to demonstrate that particular block diagram hardware or software components are old, it should not always be considered as self-evident how such components are to be interconnected to function in a disclosed complex manner. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ 298, 301 (CCPA 1974) and In re Forman, 463 F.2d 1125, 1129, 175 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1972).

For example, where the specification provides in a block diagram disclosure of a complex system that includes a microprocessor and other system components controlled by the microprocessor, a mere reference to a commercially available microprocessor, without any description of the precise operations to be performed by the microprocessor, fails to disclose how such a microprocessor would be properly programmed to (1) either perform any required calculations or (2) coordinate the other system components in the proper timed sequence to perform the functions disclosed and claimed. If a particular program is disclosed in such a system, the program should be carefully reviewed to ensure that its scope is commensurate with the scope of the functions attributed to such a program in the claims. In re Brown, 477 F.2d at 951, 177 USPQ at 695. If (1) the disclosure fails to disclose any program and (2) more than routine experimentation would be required of one skilled in the art to generate such a program, the examiner clearly would have a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency of such a disclosure. The amount of experimentation that is considered routine will vary depending on the facts and circumstances of individual cases and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. No exact numerical standard has been fixed by the courts, but the “amount of required experimentation must, however, be reasonable.” White Consol. Indus., 713 F.2d at 791, 218 USPQ at 963. One court apparently found that the amount of experimentation involved was reasonable where a skilled programmer was able to write a general computer program, implementing an embodiment form, within four hours. Hirschfield v. Banner, 462 F. Supp. 135, 142, 200 USPQ 276, 279 (D.D.C. 1978), aff’d, 615 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert.denied, 450 U.S. 994 (1981). Another court found that, where the required period of experimentation for skilled programmers to develop a particular program would run to one to two man years, this would be “a clearly unreasonable requirement” (White Consol. Indus., 713 F.2d at 791, 218 USPQ at 963).

The second category of block diagram cases occurs most frequently in pure data processing applications where the combination of block elements is totally within the confines of a computer, where there is no interfacing with external apparatus other than normal input/output devices. In some instances, it has been found that particular kinds of block diagram disclosures were sufficient to meet the enabling requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 178 USPQ 486 (CCPA 1973), In re Comstock, 481 F.2d 905, 178 USPQ 616 (CCPA 1973). The Comstock and Knowlton decisions turned on the appellants’ disclosure of (1) a reference to and reliance on an identified prior art computer system, and (2) an operative computer program for the referenced prior art computer system. In Knowlton, the disclosure was presented in such a detailed fashion that the individual program's steps were specifically interrelated with the operative structural elements in the referenced prior art computer system. The court in Knowlton indicated that the disclosure did not merely consist of a cursory explanation of flow diagrams or a bare group of program listings together with a reference to a proprietary computer in which they might be run. The disclosure was characterized as going into considerable detail in explaining the interrelationships between the disclosed hardware and software elements. Under such circumstances, the court considered the disclosure to be concise as well as full, clear, and exact to a sufficient degree to satisfy the literal language of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. It must be emphasized that because of the significance of the program listing and the reference to and reliance on an identified prior art computer system, absent either of these items, a block element disclosure within the confines of a computer should be scrutinized in precisely the same manner as the first category of block diagram cases discussed above.

Regardless of whether a disclosure involves block elements more comprehensive than a computer or block elements totally within the confines of a computer, USPTO personnel, when analyzing method claims, must recognize that the specification must be adequate to teach how to practice the claimed method. If such practice requires a particular apparatus, then the application must provide a sufficient disclosure of that apparatus if such is not already available. See In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 991, 169 USPQ 723, 727 (CCPA 1971) and In re Gunn, 537 F.2d 1123, 1128, 190 USPQ 402, 406 (CCPA 1976). When USPTO personnel question the adequacy of computer system or computer programming disclosures, the reasons for finding the specification to be nonenabling should be supported by the record as a whole. In this regard, it is also essential for USPTO personnel to reasonably challenge evidence submitted by the applicant. For example, in In re Naquin, supra, an affiant’s statement that the average computer programmer was familiar with the subroutine necessary for performing the claimed process, was held to be a statement of fact as it was unchallenged by USPTO personnel. In other words, unless USPTO personnel present a reasonable basis for challenging the disclosure in view of the record as a whole, a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, rejection in a computer system or computer programming application may not be sustained on appeal. See In re Naquin, supra, and In re Morehouse, 545 F.2d 162, 165-66, 192 USPQ 29, 32 (CCPA 1976).

While no specific universally applicable rule exists for recognizing an insufficiently disclosed application involving computer programs, an examining guideline to generally follow is to challenge the sufficiency of disclosures that fail to include the programmed steps, algorithms or procedures that the computer performs necessary to produce the claimed function. These can be described in any way that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, such as with a reasonably detailed flowchart which delineates the sequence of operations the program must perform. In programming applications where the software disclosure only includes a flowchart, as the complexity of functions and the generality of the individual components of the flowchart increase, the basis for challenging the sufficiency of such a flowchart becomes more reasonable because the likelihood of more than routine experimentation being required to generate a working program from such a flowchart also increases.

As stated earlier, once USPTO personnel have advanced a reasonable basis or presented evidence to question the adequacy of a computer system or computer programming disclosure, the applicant must show that the specification would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. In most cases, efforts to meet this burden involve submitting affidavits, referencing prior art patents or technical publications, presenting arguments of counsel, or combinations of these approaches.

In computer cases, affidavits must be critically analyzed. Affidavit practice at the outset usually involves analyzing the skill level and/or qualifications of the affiant, which should be of the person of ordinary skill in the art. When an affiant’s skill level is higher than that required by the person of ordinary skill in the art for a particular application, an examiner may challenge the affidavit as insufficient should the affiant not submit evidence demonstrating the amount of experimentation required by a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the invention. An affiant having a skill level or qualifications above that of the person of ordinary skill in the art would require less experimentation to implement the claimed invention than that for the person of ordinary skill. Similarly, an affiant having a skill level or qualifications below that of the person of ordinary skill in the art would require more experimentation to implement the claimed invention than that for the person of ordinary skill in the art. In either situation, the standard of the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been met.

In computer systems or programming cases, the problems with a given affidavit, which relate to the sufficiency of disclosure issue, generally involve affiants submitting few facts to support their conclusions or opinions. Some affidavits may go so far as to present conclusions on the ultimate legal question of sufficiency. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973), illustrates the extent of the inquiry into the factual basis underlying an affiant’s conclusions or opinions. In Brandstadter, the invention concerned a stored program controller (computer) programmed to control the storing, retrieving, and forwarding of messages in a communications system. The disclosure consisted of broadly defined block diagrams of the structure of the invention and no flowcharts or program listings of the programs of the controller. The court quoted extensively from the examiner’s Office actions and examiner’s answer in its opinion where it was apparent that the examiner consistently argued that the disclosure was merely a broad system diagram in the form of labeled block diagrams along with statements of a myriad of desired results. Various affidavits were presented in which the affiants stated that all or some of the system circuit elements in the block diagrams were either well-known in the art or “could be constructed” by the skilled design engineer, that the controller was “capable of being programmed” to perform the stated functions or results desired, and that the person having ordinary skill in the art “could design or construct or was able to program” the system. The court did consider the affiants’ statements as being some evidence on the ultimate legal question of enablement but concluded that the statements failed in their purpose since they recited conclusions or opinions with few facts to support or buttress these conclusions. With reference to the lack of a disclosed computer program or even a flowchart of the program to control the message switching system, the record contained no evidence as to the number of programmers needed, the number of man-hours and the level of skill of the programmers to produce the program required to practice the invention.

Factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure, and knowledge in the art can be expected to rebut a prima facie case of nonenablement, but not opinion evidence directed to the ultimate legal question of enablement. See Hirschfield, 462 F. Supp. at 143, 200 USPQ at 281. Where an affidavit shows that an inventor described the problem to be solved to an affiant, which then enabled the affiant to generate a computer program to solve the problem, such an affidavit will fail to demonstrate that the application alone would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the claimed invention. See In re Brown, 477 F.2d at 951, 177 USPQ at 695. In Brown, the court indicated that it had not been factually established that the applicant had not conveyed to the affiant vital and additional information in their several meetings in addition to that set out in the application. For an affidavit to be relevant to the determination of enablement, it must be probative of the level of skill of the person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time the applicant filed his application. See In re Gunn, 537 F.2d 1123, 1128, 190 USPQ 402, 406 (CCPA 1976). In that case, each of the affiants stated what was known at the time the affiant executed the affidavit, and not what was known at the time the applicant filed his application.

The commercial availability of an identified prior art computer system is very pertinent to the issue of enablement. But in some cases, this approach may not be sufficient to meet the applicant’s burden. Merely citing excerpts from technical publications in an affidavit in order to satisfy the enablement requirement is not sufficient if it is not made clear that a person skilled in the art would know which, or what parts, of the cited circuits could be used to construct the claimed device or how they could be interconnected to act in combination to produce the required results. See In re Forman, 463 F.2d 1125, 1129, 175 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1972). This analysis would appear to be less critical where the circuits comprising applicant’s system are essentially standard components of an identified prior art computer system and a standard device attached thereto.

Prior art patents and patent application publications are often relied on by applicants to show the state of the art for purposes of enablement. However, these documents must have a publication date earlier than the effective filing date of the application under consideration. See In re Budnick, 537 F.2d 535, 538, 190 USPQ 422, 424 (CCPA 1976). An analogous point was made in In re Gunn, supra, where the court indicated that patents issued after the filing date of the application under examination are not evidence of subject matter known to any person skilled in the art since their subject matter may have been known only to the patentees and the Patent and Trademark Office.

Merely citing prior art patents to demonstrate that the challenged components are old may not be sufficient proof since, even if each of the enumerated devices or labeled blocks in a block diagram disclosure were old, per se, this would not make it self-evident how each would be interconnected to function in a disclosed complex combination manner. Therefore, the specification in effect must set forth the integration of the prior art; otherwise, it is likely that undue experimentation, or more than routine experimentation would be required to implement the claimed invention. See In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 565, 182 USPQ 298, 301 (CCPA 1974). The court also noted that any cited patents which are used by the applicant to demonstrate that particular box diagram hardware or software components are old must be analyzed as to whether such patents are germane to the instant invention and as to whether such patents provide better detail of disclosure as to such components than an applicant’s own disclosure. Also, any patent or publication cited to provide evidence that a particular programming technique is well-known in the programming art does not demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art could make and use correspondingly disclosed programming techniques unless both the known and disclosed programming techniques are of approximately the same degree of complexity. See In re Knowlton, 500 F.2d 566, 572, 183 USPQ 33, 37 (CCPA 1974).

Arguments of counsel may be effective in establishing that an examiner has not properly met the burden or has otherwise erred in the examiner's position. However, it must be emphasized that arguments of counsel alone cannot take the place of evidence in the record once an examiner has advanced a reasonable basis for questioning the disclosure. See In re Budnick, 537 F.2d at 538, 190 USPQ at 424; In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965); In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964). For example, in a case where the record consisted substantially of arguments and opinions of applicant’s attorney, the court indicated that factual affidavits could have provided important evidence on the issue of enablement. See In re Knowlton, 500 F.2d at 572, 183 USPQ at 37; In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).

2164.08(a) Single Means Claim [R-11.2013]

A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor.). When claims depend on a recited property, a fact situation comparable to Hyatt is possible, where the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor.

2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter [R-08.2012]

The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).

Although, typically, inoperative embodiments are excluded by language in a claim (e.g., preamble), the scope of the claim may still not be enabled where undue experimentation is involved in determining those embodiments that are operable. A disclosure of a large number of operable embodiments and the identification of a single inoperative embodiment did not render a claim broader than the enabled scope because undue experimentation was not involved in determining those embodiments that were operable. In reAngstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 502-503, 190 USPQ 214, 218 (CCPA 1976). However, claims reading on significant numbers of inoperative embodiments would render claims nonenabled when the specification does not clearly identify the operative embodiments and undue experimentation is involved in determining those that are operative. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In reCook, 439 F.2d 730, 735, 169 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1971).

2164.08(c) Critical Feature Not Claimed [R-08.2012]

A feature which is taught as critical in a specification and is not recited in the claims should result in a rejection of such claim under the enablement provision section of 35 U.S.C. 112. See In reMayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1233, 188 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether an unclaimed feature is critical, the entire disclosure must be considered. Features which are merely preferred are not to be considered critical. In reGoffe, 542 F.2d 564, 567, 191 USPQ 429, 431 (CCPA 1976).

Limiting an applicant to the preferred materials in the absence of limiting prior art would not serve the constitutional purpose of promoting the progress in the useful arts. Therefore, an enablement rejection based on the grounds that a disclosed critical limitation is missing from a claim should be made only when the language of the specification makes it clear that the limitation is critical for the invention to function as intended. Broad language in the disclosure, including the abstract, omitting an allegedly critical feature, tends to rebut the argument of criticality.