How is the written description requirement different from the enablement requirement?

The written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. This distinction is explained in the MPEP, citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.: “If Congress had intended enablement to be the sole description requirement of ยง 112, first paragraph, the statute would have been written differently.” The MPEP further clarifies:…

Read More

How do the requirements for patent specifications differ between pre-AIA and AIA applications?

The requirements for patent specifications under 35 U.S.C. 112 are similar for both pre-AIA (applications filed before September 16, 2012) and AIA (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) applications, but there are some differences in the language and structure of the statute. For AIA applications, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) states: “The specification shall contain…

Read More

Can a patent specification be enabling without describing the invention?

Yes, it is possible for a patent specification to be enabling without fully describing the invention. The MPEP 2161 provides an example of this situation: “A disclosure could be enabling without describing the invention (e.g., a specification describing a method of making and using a paint composition made of functionally defined ingredients within broad ranges…

Read More

What are the consequences of failing to meet one of the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)?

Failing to meet any of the three requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (written description, enablement, or best mode) can have serious consequences for a patent application or an issued patent. The potential consequences include: Rejection of the patent application: During examination, if the USPTO determines that the specification fails to meet any of these requirements,…

Read More