About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Ernst & Young Report: Biotech Industry Reaches Profitability for the First Time | Main | Follow-on Biologics Conference »

April 30, 2010

Comments

"• What steps can patentees and counsel take to meet the written description requirement and withstand invalidity challenges based on the written description?
"

Invent something and then claim it and only it. Bam, you just avoided all WD rejections/invalidations that ever could be made.

I know it's hard for some people.

No. 6 - Fail.

The problem is the sufficiency of one's description of what one has invented, not a failure to only claim what one has invented.

If someone examining the application decides the person of skill in the art has little knowledge and no skill in the art, 100 pages of description still aren't enough.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30