Application of Walter L. Borkowski and John J. Van Venrooy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a claim of clear scope that is not adequately supported by an enabling disclosure commensurate with that scope is objectionable under § 112, p 1, not § 112, p 2
• noting that a claim of clear scope that is not adequately supported by an enabling disclosure commensurate with that scope is objectionable under § 112, ¶ 1, not § 112, ¶ 2
• on review of § 112 non-enablement rejection: “A disclosure may, of course, be insufficient to support one claim but sufficient to support another.”
• “[A] specification need not contain a working example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such a manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice without an undue amount of experimentation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).