AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Schall et al FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

An adequate written description of a chemical invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties." University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993). "A description of what a material does, rather than of what it is, usually does not suffice." Rochester, 358 F.3d at 923; Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568. Instead, the "disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described." Id. In addition, possession of a genus "may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of [compounds] … falling within the scope of the genus." Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1569. "Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus." Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (BPAI 2007) (citing Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927).

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2106, 2111.03, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03

Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993). . 2137.01, 2138.04, 2163

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Anderson et al McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON PC

Boston cites inter partes infringement decisions to make the same points. We, on the other hand, have gone out of our way to limit the citations to ex parte decisions. There is a reason. Ex parte practice differs from inter partes infringement practice. For example, it is possible for the Examiner to make out a prima facie case of inherency by establishing that an applicant's claimed composition prima facie appears to be the same as a composition described in a reference. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Unlike accused infringers in inter partes infringement cases (or for that matter parties in interference cases), the USPTO has no means for making and comparing properties or characteristics of compositions. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc. v. F.T.C., 401 F.2d 574, 579 (6th Cir. 1968).

Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Eischen FREDMAN 103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C.