Intro to section 112 enablement
Download
1 / 56

Intro to Section 112: Enablement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 97 Views
  • Uploaded on

Intro to Section 112: Enablement. Prof. Merges 9.6.2012. Disclosure/Enablement, § 112. U.S.C. § 112: ¶ 1.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Intro to Section 112: Enablement' - colin-patton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Intro to section 112 enablement

Intro to Section 112: Enablement

Prof. Merges

9.6.2012


U s c 112 1

Disclosure/Enablement, § 112

U.S.C. § 112: ¶ 1

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth thebest modecontemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.


1 written description of claimed invention

Disclosure/Enablement, § 112

¶ 1Written Descriptionof Claimed Invention

¶ 1Enablementof one skilled in the art without undue experimentation of:

• how to make

• how to use

¶ 1Best Modecontemplated by inventor

¶ 2,6Claims- definiteness


U s c 112 2
U.S.C. § 112: ¶ 2

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


U s c 112 6
U.S.C. § 112: ¶ 6

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.


CLAIM 1:

ELEMENTS

Rotating handle at end of bar

U-shaped bar

Cutting element attached to bar

Base, with passageway


Enablement written description
Enablement/Written Description

Cheese Slicer

Specifications, ¶ X

“The handle may be turned to ... draw the cutting element

taut so that it may properly perform its cutting function.”

Claim Elements

Rotating handle at end of bar

Rotating handle at end of bar

Cutting element attached to bar

Base, with passageway

U-shaped bar


The incandescent lamp patent
The Incandescent Lamp Patent

Incandescing conductor

Bamboo discovered as an incandescing conductor.


Claims page 262
Claims – page 262

1. An incandescing conductor for an electric lamp, of carbonized fibrous or textile material and of an arch or horseshoe shape, substantially as hereinbefore set forth.


System claims
System claims

2. The combination, substantially as hereinbefore set forth, of an electric circuit and an incandescing conductor of carbonized fibrous material, included in and forming part of said circuit, and a transparent hermetically sealed chamber in which the conductor is enclosed.


Narrow picture claim p 263
Narrow “picture” claim – p. 263

3. The incandescing conductor for an electric lamp, formed of carbonized paper, substantially as described.



Sawyer and man commercial product
Sawyer and Man Commercial product patent?

  • Is this relevant to question of infringement in this case?

  • Not really; the suit is for infringement of the patent, not similarity of commercial products


Edison patent
Edison Patent patent?

  • Is this relevant to this case

  • Is it a defense for McKeesport Light, in the suit under the Sawyer & Man patent, that it has a license under Edison’s patent?


Overlapping and blocking patents
Overlapping and Blocking Patents patent?

  • Quite possible for defendant to have patents that plaintiff infringes

  • Irrelevant to plaintiff’s cause of action


What is defendant s defense
What is defendant’s defense? patent?

“Is the complainant entitled to a monopoly of all fibrous and textile materials for incandescent conductors?”


If the patentees had discovered in fibrous and textile substances a quality common to them all, or to them generally, as distinguishing them from other materials, such as minerals, etc., and such quality or characteristic adapted them peculiarly to incandescent conductors, such claim might not be too broad.


Instead of confining themselves to carbonized paper, as they might properly have done, and in fact did in their third claim, they made a broad claim for every fibrous or textile material, when in fact an examination of over six thousand vegetable growths showed that none of them possessed the peculiar qualities that fitted them for that purpose. -- page 266


Policy rationale
Policy rationale might properly have done,

Was everybody then precluded by this broad claim from making further investigation? We think not.


Edison s experiments relevance
Edison’s experiments – relevance? might properly have done,

  • How does this evidence bear on the question of the proper scope of Sawyer and Man’s patent?


Page 268
Page 268 might properly have done,

[H]ow would it be possible for a person to know what fibrous or textile material was adapted to the purpose of an incandescent conductor, except by the most careful and painstaking experimentation?


If … as before observed, there were might properly have done, some general quality, running through the whole fibrous and textile kingdom, which distinguished it from every other, and gave it a peculiar fitness for the particular purpose, the man who discovered such quality might justly be entitled to a patent; but that is not the case here.


Sawyer and mann patent
Sawyer and Mann Patent might properly have done,

Claimed: “All Fibrous and textile material” (6,000 plus embodiments)

Enabled: Carbonized paper, plus?


Janssen v tiva
Janssen v. Tiva might properly have done,

  • Pioneering vs, generic drug makers

  • Intertwined patent law and FDA law/regulations

  • Generic pharmaceutical co.’s vs. Pioneer pharmaceutical co.’s


Janssen v tiva1
Janssen v. Tiva might properly have done,

1. A method of treating Alzheimer's disease and related dementias which comprises administering to a patient suffering from such a disease a therapeutically effective amount of galanthamine or a pharmaceutically-acceptable acid addition salt thereof.


Mechanism
Mechanism might properly have done,

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors like galantamine increase the amount of acetylcholine available for binding to . . . receptors.


Galantamine the compound
Galantamine, the compound might properly have done,

Galantamine, a tertiary alkaloid, has been isolated from the bulbs of the Caucasian snowdrops Galanthus woronowi (Proskumina, N. F. and Yakoleva, A. P. 1952, Alkaloids of Galanthus woronowi. II. Isolation of a new alkaloid. (In Russian.) Zh. Obschchei Khim. (J. Gen. Chem.) 22, 1899 1902). It has also been isolated from the common snowdrop Galanthus nivalis (Boit, 1954).


Related patents
Related patents might properly have done,

7,160,559, assigned to Janssen, controlled release formulation of galantamine, issued 2007

Role of intervening prior art


318 patent specification
‘318 Patent Specification might properly have done,

  • Just over 1 page long . . .

  • 6 Prior art references cited and discussed

  • 2 Papers showed that galanthamine affected nervous system activity

  • 4 papers on animal studies and galanthamine


Prosecution history
Prosecution History might properly have done,

Dr. Davis did not learn the results of the animal testing experiments -- which suggested that galantamine could be a promising Alzheimer's disease treatment -- until July 1987, after the '318 patent had issued


Drug development timeline
Drug development timeline might properly have done,

After the '318 patent issued in May 1987, Dr. Davis licensed the patent in November 1995 to Janssen. In February 2001 Janssen received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for using galantamine to treat mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.


District court holding
District court holding might properly have done,

The district court alternatively found that the specification and claims did not “teach one of skill in the art how to use the claimed method” because the application “only surmise[d] how the claimed method could be used” without providing sufficient galantamine dosage information . . . .


Utility and enablement
Utility and Enablement might properly have done,

If a patent claim fails to meet the utility requirement because it is not useful or operative, then it also fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed.Cir.1999)


Why is this invention not enabled
Why is this invention not enabled? might properly have done,

  • “Tossing out mere ideas” not enough

  • Mere research proposals not enough

  • Harm from granting patents “too early”


Very similar to utility same policy
Very similar to utility; same policy might properly have done,

Allowing ideas, research proposals, or objects only of research to be patented has the potential to give priority to the wrong party and to “confer power to block off whole areas of scientific development, without compensating benefit to the public.” Brenner, 383 U.S. at 534 (footnote omitted). -- Janssen.


Timing is again key
Timing is again key . . . might properly have done,

The results from the '318 patent's proposed animal tests of galantamine for treating symptoms of Alzheimer's disease were not available at the time of the application, and the district court properly held that they could not be used to establish enablement.


Obviousness v enablement
Obviousness v. Enablement might properly have done,

Janssen tried to establish enablement based on the prior art

But Janssen had to distinguish and minimize the prior art in overcoming the obviousness rejection . . .


Proposing testing vs proof
Proposing testing, vs. proof might properly have done,

[T]he specification, even read in the light of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, does no more than state a hypothesis and propose testing to determine the accuracy of that hypothesis. That is not sufficient. – Casebook.


Updating incandescent lamp
Updating might properly have done, Incandescent Lamp

  • Federal Circuit:

    • Enablement is an issue of fact

  • Standard has not changed

    Patents are required to "teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation.' " Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1997).


Updating continued
Updating, continued . . . might properly have done,

  • Automotive Technologies Intern., Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.,501 F.3d 1274 (Fed Cir 2007)


Claim
Claim might properly have done,

1. A side impact crash sensor for a vehicle having front and rear wheels, said sensor comprising:

(a) a housing; 

(b) a mass within said housing movable relative to said housing in response to accelerations of said housing; 

(c) means responsive to the motion of said mass upon acceleration of said housing in excess of a predetermined threshold value, for initiating an occupant protection apparatus; and 


(d) means for mounting said housing onto at least one of a side door of the vehicle and a side of the vehicle between the centers of the front and rear wheels, in such a position and a direction as to sense an impact into the side of said vehicle.


Figure 11 is a “conceptional view of an electronic sensor assembly 201 built according to the teachings of this invention. This sensor contains a sensing mass 202 which moves relative to housing 203 in response to the acceleration of housing 203 which accompanies a side impact crash.” The specification further states that the motion of the sensing mass “can be sensed by a variety of technologies using, for example, optics, resistance change, capacitance change or magnetic reluctance change.” The enablement of this electronic side impact sensor is at issue in this appeal.


According to Delphi, providing an enabling disclosure of only mechanical side impact sensors is insufficient to satisfy the enablement requirement because the full scope of the claims is not enabled. Delphi further responds that the short recitation of an electronic sensor in the specification does not in fact enable an electronic side impact sensor because it does not teach one skilled in the art how to make and use such a sensor without undue experimentation. – 501 F.3d at 1281


[O]nly one short paragraph and one figure relate to an electronic sensor. Importantly, that paragraph and figure do little more than provide an overview of an electronic sensor without providing any details of how the electronic sensor operates. Figure 11 shows a very general view of an electronic side impact sensor.


[T]he claims includ[e] both mechanical and electronic side impact sensors. Disclosure of only mechanical side impact sensors does not permit one skilled in the art to make and use the invention as broadly as it was claimed, which includes electronic side impact sensors. Electronic side impact sensors are not just another known species of a genus consisting of sensors, but are a distinctly different sensor compared with the well-enabled mechanical side impact sensor that is fully discussed in the specification.


Thus, in order to fulfill the enablement requirement, impact sensors. Disclosure of only mechanical side impact sensors does not permit one skilled in the art to make and use the invention as broadly as it was claimed, which includes electronic side impact sensors. Electronic side impact sensors are not just another known species of a genus consisting of sensors, but are a distinctly different sensor compared with the well-enabled mechanical side impact sensor that is fully discussed in the specification. the specification must enable the full scope of the claims that includes both electronic and mechanical side impact sensors, which the specification fails to do.

– 501 F.3d at 1285.


ad