How does the written description requirement differ from enablement in patent applications?

The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:

“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”

Key differences include:

  • Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
  • Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.

A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2163.03 - Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Enablement, MPEP 2163.03, Written Description