Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
"Written Description" Requirement (1)
The written description and enablement requirements are separate and distinct, as stated in the MPEP:
“This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”
While both requirements are part of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), they serve different purposes:
- The written description requirement ensures that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to make and use it.
It’s possible for a specification to enable making and using the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description. Conversely, a specification might provide adequate written description but fail to enable the invention.
To learn more:
First And Second Paragraphs (1)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
First Paragraph (1)
The written description and enablement requirements are separate and distinct, as stated in the MPEP:
“This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”
While both requirements are part of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), they serve different purposes:
- The written description requirement ensures that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to make and use it.
It’s possible for a specification to enable making and using the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description. Conversely, a specification might provide adequate written description but fail to enable the invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (8)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
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:
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
Working examples play a significant role in determining enablement for patent applications, although they are not always required. According to MPEP 2164.06:
“The presence of a working example in the specification is not always necessary to satisfy the enablement requirement. However, where a working example is necessary for enablement, the quantity of experimentation required must be determined.”
Key points about working examples:
- They can demonstrate the practicality and operability of the invention
- They provide concrete guidance on how to make and use the invention
- Their necessity depends on the nature of the invention and the state of the art
- In unpredictable arts, working examples may be more critical for enablement
- The absence of working examples may be overcome by other forms of disclosure
Examiners consider working examples as part of the overall assessment of enablement. While helpful, the lack of working examples does not automatically mean the application fails to meet the enablement requirement if other factors support enablement.
To learn more:
The USPTO generally discourages the use of post-filing date evidence in enablement determinations. According to MPEP 2164.05(a):
“In general, the examiner should not use post-filing date references to demonstrate that a patent is not enabled.” However, there are exceptions:
- A later-dated reference may provide evidence of what one skilled in the art would have known on or before the effective filing date.
- If a publication demonstrates that those of ordinary skill in the art would find a particular invention was not enabled years after the filing date, it could be evidence that the claimed invention was not possible at the time of filing.
The MPEP also notes: “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.”
To learn more:
When claiming a genus in a patent application, working examples play an important role in demonstrating enablement. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this issue:
“For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of level of skill, state of the art and the information in the specification) would expect the claimed genus could be used in that manner without undue experimentation.”
Key points about working examples and genus claims:
- Representative examples can support enablement for the entire genus
- The examples should be considered along with the level of skill in the art and the specification’s information
- Proof of enablement for other members of the genus may be required if the examiner provides adequate reasons
- The examiner must establish that a person skilled in the art could not use the genus as a whole without undue experimentation
It’s important to note that the number of examples needed depends on the predictability of the art and the breadth of the claims.
To learn more:
The written description and enablement requirements are separate and distinct, as stated in the MPEP:
“This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”
While both requirements are part of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), they serve different purposes:
- The written description requirement ensures that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to make and use it.
It’s possible for a specification to enable making and using the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description. Conversely, a specification might provide adequate written description but fail to enable the invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2121 – Prior Art; General Level Of Operability Required To Make A Prima Facie Case (1)
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2163 – Guidelines For The Examination Of Patent Applications Under The 35 U.S.C. 112(A) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (1)
The written description and enablement requirements are separate and distinct, as stated in the MPEP:
“This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”
While both requirements are part of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), they serve different purposes:
- The written description requirement ensures that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to make and use it.
It’s possible for a specification to enable making and using the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description. Conversely, a specification might provide adequate written description but fail to enable the invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2163.03 – Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises (1)
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:
MPEP 2164.02 – Working And Prophetic Examples (1)
When claiming a genus in a patent application, working examples play an important role in demonstrating enablement. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this issue:
“For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of level of skill, state of the art and the information in the specification) would expect the claimed genus could be used in that manner without undue experimentation.”
Key points about working examples and genus claims:
- Representative examples can support enablement for the entire genus
- The examples should be considered along with the level of skill in the art and the specification’s information
- Proof of enablement for other members of the genus may be required if the examiner provides adequate reasons
- The examiner must establish that a person skilled in the art could not use the genus as a whole without undue experimentation
It’s important to note that the number of examples needed depends on the predictability of the art and the breadth of the claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2164.05 – Determination Of Enablement Based On Evidence As A Whole (1)
The USPTO generally discourages the use of post-filing date evidence in enablement determinations. According to MPEP 2164.05(a):
“In general, the examiner should not use post-filing date references to demonstrate that a patent is not enabled.” However, there are exceptions:
- A later-dated reference may provide evidence of what one skilled in the art would have known on or before the effective filing date.
- If a publication demonstrates that those of ordinary skill in the art would find a particular invention was not enabled years after the filing date, it could be evidence that the claimed invention was not possible at the time of filing.
The MPEP also notes: “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.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2164.06 – Quantity Of Experimentation (1)
Working examples play a significant role in determining enablement for patent applications, although they are not always required. According to MPEP 2164.06:
“The presence of a working example in the specification is not always necessary to satisfy the enablement requirement. However, where a working example is necessary for enablement, the quantity of experimentation required must be determined.”
Key points about working examples:
- They can demonstrate the practicality and operability of the invention
- They provide concrete guidance on how to make and use the invention
- Their necessity depends on the nature of the invention and the state of the art
- In unpredictable arts, working examples may be more critical for enablement
- The absence of working examples may be overcome by other forms of disclosure
Examiners consider working examples as part of the overall assessment of enablement. While helpful, the lack of working examples does not automatically mean the application fails to meet the enablement requirement if other factors support enablement.
To learn more:
MPEP 2165.02 – Best Mode Requirement Compared To Enablement Requirement (1)
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
MPEP 2174 – Relationship Between The Requirements Of 35 U.S.C. 112(A) And (B) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (1)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
Patent Law (8)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
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:
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
Working examples play a significant role in determining enablement for patent applications, although they are not always required. According to MPEP 2164.06:
“The presence of a working example in the specification is not always necessary to satisfy the enablement requirement. However, where a working example is necessary for enablement, the quantity of experimentation required must be determined.”
Key points about working examples:
- They can demonstrate the practicality and operability of the invention
- They provide concrete guidance on how to make and use the invention
- Their necessity depends on the nature of the invention and the state of the art
- In unpredictable arts, working examples may be more critical for enablement
- The absence of working examples may be overcome by other forms of disclosure
Examiners consider working examples as part of the overall assessment of enablement. While helpful, the lack of working examples does not automatically mean the application fails to meet the enablement requirement if other factors support enablement.
To learn more:
The USPTO generally discourages the use of post-filing date evidence in enablement determinations. According to MPEP 2164.05(a):
“In general, the examiner should not use post-filing date references to demonstrate that a patent is not enabled.” However, there are exceptions:
- A later-dated reference may provide evidence of what one skilled in the art would have known on or before the effective filing date.
- If a publication demonstrates that those of ordinary skill in the art would find a particular invention was not enabled years after the filing date, it could be evidence that the claimed invention was not possible at the time of filing.
The MPEP also notes: “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.”
To learn more:
When claiming a genus in a patent application, working examples play an important role in demonstrating enablement. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this issue:
“For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of level of skill, state of the art and the information in the specification) would expect the claimed genus could be used in that manner without undue experimentation.”
Key points about working examples and genus claims:
- Representative examples can support enablement for the entire genus
- The examples should be considered along with the level of skill in the art and the specification’s information
- Proof of enablement for other members of the genus may be required if the examiner provides adequate reasons
- The examiner must establish that a person skilled in the art could not use the genus as a whole without undue experimentation
It’s important to note that the number of examples needed depends on the predictability of the art and the breadth of the claims.
To learn more:
The written description and enablement requirements are separate and distinct, as stated in the MPEP:
“This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”
While both requirements are part of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), they serve different purposes:
- The written description requirement ensures that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to make and use it.
It’s possible for a specification to enable making and using the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description. Conversely, a specification might provide adequate written description but fail to enable the invention.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (8)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
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:
The best mode requirement and the enablement requirement are distinct obligations under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“The best mode requirement is a separate and distinct requirement from the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.”
The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in a way that allows the public to make and use it. In contrast, the best mode requirement obligates inventors to disclose the best way they know of carrying out the invention at the time of filing.
To learn more:
Working examples play a significant role in determining enablement for patent applications, although they are not always required. According to MPEP 2164.06:
“The presence of a working example in the specification is not always necessary to satisfy the enablement requirement. However, where a working example is necessary for enablement, the quantity of experimentation required must be determined.”
Key points about working examples:
- They can demonstrate the practicality and operability of the invention
- They provide concrete guidance on how to make and use the invention
- Their necessity depends on the nature of the invention and the state of the art
- In unpredictable arts, working examples may be more critical for enablement
- The absence of working examples may be overcome by other forms of disclosure
Examiners consider working examples as part of the overall assessment of enablement. While helpful, the lack of working examples does not automatically mean the application fails to meet the enablement requirement if other factors support enablement.
To learn more:
The USPTO generally discourages the use of post-filing date evidence in enablement determinations. According to MPEP 2164.05(a):
“In general, the examiner should not use post-filing date references to demonstrate that a patent is not enabled.” However, there are exceptions:
- A later-dated reference may provide evidence of what one skilled in the art would have known on or before the effective filing date.
- If a publication demonstrates that those of ordinary skill in the art would find a particular invention was not enabled years after the filing date, it could be evidence that the claimed invention was not possible at the time of filing.
The MPEP also notes: “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.”
To learn more:
When claiming a genus in a patent application, working examples play an important role in demonstrating enablement. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this issue:
“For a claimed genus, representative examples together with a statement applicable to the genus as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if one skilled in the art (in view of level of skill, state of the art and the information in the specification) would expect the claimed genus could be used in that manner without undue experimentation.”
Key points about working examples and genus claims:
- Representative examples can support enablement for the entire genus
- The examples should be considered along with the level of skill in the art and the specification’s information
- Proof of enablement for other members of the genus may be required if the examiner provides adequate reasons
- The examiner must establish that a person skilled in the art could not use the genus as a whole without undue experimentation
It’s important to note that the number of examples needed depends on the predictability of the art and the breadth of the claims.
To learn more:
The written description and enablement requirements are separate and distinct, as stated in the MPEP:
“This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement.”
While both requirements are part of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), they serve different purposes:
- The written description requirement ensures that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- The enablement requirement ensures that the invention is described in sufficient detail for one skilled in the art to make and use it.
It’s possible for a specification to enable making and using the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description. Conversely, a specification might provide adequate written description but fail to enable the invention.
To learn more: