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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Cert. Denied in Eli Lilly v. Sun Pharmaceuticals | Main | In re Kao (Fed. Cir. 2011) »

May 17, 2011


How does the number of species in these claims (400,000,000,000) compare with a typical chemical case, assuming ~10 variable substituents? And if the Board (or CAFC) were to rule that these claims were sufficiently definite to pass muster under Sec. 112, 2nd para., what about written description or enablement?

There is no question that the claims are definite if all the variables are clearly defined.

Further, I don't think there have been any recent cases holding a Markush group to be "improper" nor would there be any basis for such a holding in 112. Courts have already rejected 121 as a basis for such a rejection.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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 31