{"section":{"filename":"s2121.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2121","title":"Prior Art; General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","bytes":80603,"sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31","subsection_count":4,"max_depth":1,"subsections":[{"number":"2121.01","title":"Use of Prior Art in Rejections Where Operability is in Question","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","depth":1},{"number":"2121.02","title":"Compounds and Compositions — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":1},{"number":"2121.03","title":"Plant Genetics — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-01.2024","depth":1},{"number":"2121.04","title":"Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art","revision_tag":"R-10.2019","depth":1}]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2121","cases":[{"key":"case:689f.3d1282","slug":"in-re-antor-media-corp","short_name":"In re Antor Media Corp.","canonical_citation":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","decision_year":2012,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"During prosecution, prior art publications and patents are presumed enabling; an examiner may reject claims as anticipated without inquiring into the reference's enablement, and once a prima facie case is made the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the presumption.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":4,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:399f.2d269","slug":"in-re-hoeksema","short_name":"In re Hoeksema","canonical_citation":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968)","decision_year":1968,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"The mere naming of a compound in a reference, without an available process for making it, cannot constitute a description of the compound; prior art must enable a skilled artisan to make or synthesize the compound to anticipate or render it obvious.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:766f.2d531","slug":"in-re-donohue-1985","short_name":"In re Donohue","canonical_citation":"In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A publication places the invention in the public's possession, and thus anticipates, if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication's description with his or her own knowledge to make the claimed invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:301f.2d929","slug":"in-re-legrice","short_name":"In re LeGrice","canonical_citation":"In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962)","decision_year":1962,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A publication is enabling prior art only if it places the public in possession of the invention; a catalogue picture of a rose that could not be reproduced from seed, with no evidence of commercial availability in enabling form, was not an enabled disclosure.","holding_confidence":"medium","mentions":3,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:629f.2d675","slug":"in-re-sasse","short_name":"In re Sasse","canonical_citation":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)","decision_year":1980,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A prior art reference that expressly anticipates or makes obvious the claimed invention is presumed operable and enabling; the burden is on the applicant to rebut that presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":2,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:713f.3d104","slug":"in-re-morsa","short_name":"In re Morsa","canonical_citation":"In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 106 USPQ2d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2013)","decision_year":2013,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"When a cited prior art reference appears non-enabling on its face, an applicant may successfully challenge the reference for lack of enablement by argument alone, without submitting supporting evidence.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:288f.2d708","slug":"in-re-moreton","short_name":"In re Moreton","canonical_citation":"In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 129 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1961)","decision_year":1961,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"The level of enabling disclosure required of a prior art reference is the same regardless of the reference's type or nationality. Additionally, a claim to a new use per se fails under 35 U.S.C. 101 because a use is not among the statutory categories of patentable invention.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:468f.3d1366","slug":"impax-labs-inc-v-aventis-pharm-inc","short_name":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm.Inc.","canonical_citation":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 81 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","decision_year":2006,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation; a reference anticipates if it describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill to carry it out.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:413f.3d1318","slug":"rasmusson-v-smithkline-beecham-corp","short_name":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.","canonical_citation":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 75 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for anticipation purposes; the description sufficient to anticipate a claim is a lower standard than the written description and enablement needed to support a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:346f.3d1051","slug":"elan-pharm-inc-v-mayo-found-for-med-educ-research","short_name":"Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research","canonical_citation":"Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 68 USPQ2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","decision_year":2003,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the claimed subject matter; mere naming or description is insufficient if the subject matter cannot be produced by one of ordinary skill without undue experimentation.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:892f.2d1547","slug":"beckman-instruments-v-lkb-produkter-ab","short_name":"Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB","canonical_citation":"Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches, so a non-enabling disclosure may still support an obviousness determination.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:935f.2d1569","slug":"symbol-techs-inc-v-opticon-inc","short_name":"Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc.","canonical_citation":"Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","decision_year":1991,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for all it teaches for purposes of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103; separately, consonance requires maintaining the line of demarcation between the independent and distinct inventions that prompted a restriction requirement.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:488f.2d538","slug":"in-re-wiggins-1973","short_name":"In re Wiggins","canonical_citation":"In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Where a reference merely discloses a compound's structure, evidence that attempts to prepare the compound were unsuccessful before the relevant time shows the disclosure is non-enabling; separately, secondary considerations such as unexpected results or commercial success are irrelevant to anticipation rejections and cannot overcome them.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:24uspq2d1618","slug":"ex-parte-thomson","short_name":"Ex parte Thomson","canonical_citation":"Ex parte Thomson, 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI","holding_summary":"A printed publication describing a plant cultivar is an enabled disclosure where seeds are commercially available before the critical date and one of ordinary skill could grow the claimed cultivar from them.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:381f.3d1125","slug":"in-re-elsner","short_name":"In re Elsner","canonical_citation":"In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 72 USPQ2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"A published foreign document identifying a plant, combined with a foreign sale that puts one of ordinary skill in possession of the plant itself, can render the plant available as prior art against a plant patent application.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:47f.2d951","slug":"in-re-bager","short_name":"In re Bager","canonical_citation":"In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 8 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1931)","decision_year":1931,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Description for purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words; a picture may be enabling prior art if it shows all the claimed structural features and how they are put together.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]},{"key":"case:28f.2d812","slug":"jockmus-v-leviton","short_name":"Jockmus v. Leviton","canonical_citation":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","decision_year":1928,"court":"2d Cir.","holding_summary":"Drawings and pictures in a prior art reference can anticipate a claim, but only if the picture shows all the claimed structural features and how they are put together.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":[]}],"statutes":[{"key":"us_usc:35:102","slug":"35-usc-102","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102","mentions":9},{"key":"us_usc:35:103","slug":"35-usc-103","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103","mentions":2}],"cross_references":[{"key":"mpep:716","section_number":"716","title":"Affidavits or Declarations Under 37 CFR 1.132 and Other Evidence Traversing Rejections","exists":true,"mentions":2},{"key":"mpep:2122","section_number":"2122","title":"Discussion of Utility in the Prior Art","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2125","section_number":"2125","title":"Drawings as Prior Art","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2131","section_number":"2131","title":"Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2150","section_number":"2150","title":"Examination Guidelines for 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as Amended by the First Inventor To File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act","exists":true,"mentions":1},{"key":"mpep:2152","section_number":"2152","title":"Detailed Discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b)","exists":true,"mentions":1}],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"cs_s5wkckbn","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_s5wkckbn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675 (CCPA 1980)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Sasse","all_citations":["629 F.2d 675","207 USPQ 107"],"canonical_citation":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)","decision_year":1980,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_3kyp4jsw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3kyp4jsw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Antor Media Corp.","all_citations":["689 F.3d 1282","103 USPQ2d 1555"],"canonical_citation":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","decision_year":2012,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_ci4buzar","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_ci4buzar","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104 (Fed. Cir. 2013)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Morsa","all_citations":["713 F.3d 104","106 USPQ2d 1327"],"canonical_citation":"In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 106 USPQ2d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2013)","decision_year":2013,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_6mebsnoe","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_6mebsnoe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708 (CCPA 1961)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Moreton","all_citations":["288 F.2d 708","129 USPQ 227"],"canonical_citation":"In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 129 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1961)","decision_year":1961,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_i5n3crhs","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_i5n3crhs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm.Inc.","all_citations":["468 F.3d 1366","81 USPQ2d 1001"],"canonical_citation":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 81 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","decision_year":2006,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_zkyi4qmm","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zkyi4qmm","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.","all_citations":["413 F.3d 1318","75 USPQ2d 1297"],"canonical_citation":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 75 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_zidjuomb","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_zidjuomb","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269 (CCPA 1968)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Hoeksema","all_citations":["399 F.2d 269","158 USPQ 596"],"canonical_citation":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968)","decision_year":1968,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_waxvoaoo","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_waxvoaoo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research","all_citations":["346 F.3d 1051","68 USPQ2d 1373"],"canonical_citation":"Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 68 USPQ2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","decision_year":2003,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_mwtlywgs","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_mwtlywgs","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Donohue","all_citations":["766 F.2d 531","226 USPQ 619"],"canonical_citation":"In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","decision_year":1985,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_b6owfmle","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_b6owfmle","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB","all_citations":["892 F.2d 1547","13 USPQ2d 1301"],"canonical_citation":"Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","decision_year":1989,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_fcfzhyg6","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_fcfzhyg6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc.","all_citations":["935 F.2d 1569","19 USPQ2d 1241"],"canonical_citation":"Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","decision_year":1991,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_3pmcx3zu","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_3pmcx3zu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538 (CCPA 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Wiggins","all_citations":["488 F.2d 538","179 USPQ 421"],"canonical_citation":"In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_d6ust2mw","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_d6ust2mw","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929 (CCPA 1962)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re LeGrice","all_citations":["301 F.2d 929","133 USPQ 365"],"canonical_citation":"In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962)","decision_year":1962,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_kcbtcmgn","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_kcbtcmgn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Ex parte Thomson, 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Ex parte Thomson","all_citations":["24 USPQ2d 1618"],"canonical_citation":"Ex parte Thomson, 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)","decision_year":1992,"court":"BPAI"},{"id":"cs_gegbaazp","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_gegbaazp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Elsner","all_citations":["381 F.3d 1125","72 USPQ2d 1038"],"canonical_citation":"In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 72 USPQ2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","decision_year":2004,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_n3mocofe","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_n3mocofe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951 (CCPA 1931)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"In re Bager","all_citations":["47 F.2d 951","8 USPQ 484"],"canonical_citation":"In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 8 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1931)","decision_year":1931,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_rpso7efn","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_rpso7efn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"short_name":"Jockmus v. Leviton","all_citations":["28 F.2d 812"],"canonical_citation":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","decision_year":1928,"court":"2d Cir."},{"id":"st_wrfmgtn5","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_wrfmgtn5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102"},{"id":"st_ompe7akv","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ompe7akv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"103","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103"},{"id":"st_jftolmqq","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_jftolmqq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":["b"],"canonical_citation":"pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)"},{"id":"se_7yiv5tlc","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_7yiv5tlc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201731","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121","section_number":"2121","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Prior Art; General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case","children_ids":["pb_csc2euwu","pb_cjbfucbu","nq_t4pkhpo2","pb_uycp4iym","pb_jsmtij7d","pb_rrmiommh","pb_taf2pooe","pb_sjysxtgo","pb_rsc6uqe7","pb_5h2ftcfy","se_rgzdp6jf","se_pnnyr2fz","se_vtmhptfv","se_7bh64z3d"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024"},{"id":"pb_csc2euwu","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_csc2euwu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I.</b><b> PRIOR ART IS PRESUMED TO BE OPERABLE/ENABLING</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. PRIOR ART IS PRESUMED TO BE OPERABLE/ENABLING","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201731/b.0","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. PRIOR ART IS PRESUMED TO BE OPERABLE/ENABLING"},{"id":"pb_cjbfucbu","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_cjbfucbu","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201749\">When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all\n                        of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once\n                        such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of\n                        operability. <i>In re Sasse,</i> 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). See\n                        also <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e93668\">MPEP\n                              §&nbsp;716.07</a></b>. See also <i>In re Antor Media Corp.,</i>\n                        689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, in <i>In re Antor\n                           Media Corp.,</i> the court stated:\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP § 716.07. See also In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, in In re Antor Media Corp., the court stated:","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201749","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"se_gdeekbal","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_gdeekbal","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"stub-716","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_716","section_number":"716","chapter":"700","depth":0,"title":"Section 716","children_ids":[]},{"id":"nq_t4pkhpo2","node_type":"narrative_quote","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/nq_t4pkhpo2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<blockquote id=\"ch2100_d29ba0_f13b_157\">\n                           <p id=\"ch2100_p_299b6_1e876_178\">“Consistent with the statutory framework and our\n                              precedent, we therefore hold that, during patent prosecution, an examiner is\n                              entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication or patent\n                              without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that prior art reference is\n                              enabling. As long as an examiner makes a proper prima facie case of anticipation\n                              by giving adequate notice under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303187\">§ 132</a></b>, the burden shifts to\n                              the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of nonenablement.” \n                           </p>\n                        </blockquote>","rendered_text_plain":"“Consistent with the statutory framework and our precedent, we therefore hold that, during patent prosecution, an examiner is entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication or patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that prior art reference is enabling. As long as an examiner makes a proper prima facie case of anticipation by giving adequate notice under § 132, the burden shifts to the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of nonenablement.”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d29ba0_f13b_157","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"source_anchor":"ch2100_d29ba0_f13b_157","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc","source_case_id":"cs_3kyp4jsw"},{"id":"pb_uycp4iym","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_uycp4iym","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch2100_p_299b6_1e87e_17\"><i>In re Antor Media Corp.,</i> 689 F.3d at\n                        1289, 103 USPQ2d at 1559.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d at 1289, 103 USPQ2d at 1559.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_1e87e_17","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_jsmtij7d","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_jsmtij7d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch2100_p_29a0b_126bd_155\">Where a reference appears to not be enabling on its\n                        face, however, an applicant may successfully challenge the cited prior art for lack of\n                        enablement by argument without supporting evidence. <i>In re Morsa,</i> 713\n                        F.3d 104, 110, 106 USPQ2d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013).\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where a reference appears to not be enabling on its face, however, an applicant may successfully challenge the cited prior art for lack of enablement by argument without supporting evidence. In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 110, 106 USPQ2d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_29a0b_126bd_155","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_rrmiommh","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rrmiommh","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch2100_p_299b6_1e8c6_31a\">See also <b><a href=\"s716.html#d0e93668\">MPEP § 716.07</a></b>.\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"See also MPEP § 716.07.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_1e8c6_31a","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_taf2pooe","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_taf2pooe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II.</b><b> WHAT CONSTITUTES AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF PRIOR ART THE DISCLOSURE IS CONTAINED IN</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. WHAT CONSTITUTES AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF PRIOR ART THE DISCLOSURE IS CONTAINED IN","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201731/b.2","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. WHAT CONSTITUTES AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF PRIOR ART THE DISCLOSURE IS CONTAINED IN"},{"id":"pb_sjysxtgo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_sjysxtgo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201765\">The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an\n                        “enabling disclosure” is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does\n                        not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed\n                        publication or other. There is no basis in the statute (<b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">35&nbsp;U.S.C. 102</a></b> or\n                        <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">103</a></b>) for discriminating either in favor of or against prior art\n                        references on the basis of nationality. <i>In re Moreton,</i> 288&nbsp;F.2d 708,\n                        129 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1961).\n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"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. There is no basis in the statute (35 U.S.C. 102 or 103) for discriminating either in favor of or against prior art references on the basis of nationality. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 129 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1961).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201765","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_rsc6uqe7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rsc6uqe7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>III.</b><b> EFFICACY IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR ART ENABLEMENT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"III. EFFICACY IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR ART ENABLEMENT","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201731/b.4","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"III. EFFICACY IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR ART ENABLEMENT"},{"id":"pb_5h2ftcfy","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_5h2ftcfy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201783\"> A prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus\n                        anticipates a claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention in\n                        sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the\n                        claimed invention; “proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be\n                        enabling for purposes of anticipation.” <i>Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis\n                           Pharm.</i><i>Inc., </i>468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006)\n                        (citing <i>Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,</i> 413 F.3d 1318, 1326,\n                        75 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). See also <b><a href=\"s2122.html#d0e201997\">MPEP § 2122</a></b>. \n                     </p>","rendered_text_plain":"A prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus anticipates a claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention; “proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.” Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm.Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326, 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). See also MPEP § 2122.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201783","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"se_zvhantvc","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_zvhantvc","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"stub-2122","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2122","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2122","section_number":"2122","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2122","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_rgzdp6jf","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_rgzdp6jf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201800","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_01","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_01","section_number":"2121.01","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Use of Prior Art in Rejections Where Operability is in Question","children_ids":["pb_yxvhmdjj","pb_vrnyyqao","pb_pzrkm7sq","pb_skve4gfe","pb_trp47h4p"],"revision_tag":"R-07.2022","parent_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_yxvhmdjj","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_yxvhmdjj","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201808\">“In determining that quantum of prior art disclosure which is necessary\n                           to declare an ... invention ‘not novel’ or ‘anticipated’ within <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52\">section\n                                 102</a></b>, the stated test is whether a reference contains an ‘enabling\n                           disclosure’... .” <i>In re</i><i>Hoeksema,</i> 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). The disclosure in\n                           an assertedly anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired\n                           subject matter; mere naming or description of the subject matter is insufficient, if it\n                           cannot be produced without undue&nbsp;experimentation. <i>Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo\n                              Found. For Med. Educ. &amp; Research,</i> 346 F.3d 1051, 1054, 68 USPQ2d 1373,\n                           1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (At issue was whether a prior art reference enabled one of\n                           ordinary skill in the art to produce Elan’s claimed transgenic mouse without undue\n                           experimentation. Without a disclosure enabling one skilled in the art to produce a\n                           transgenic mouse without undue experimentation, the reference would not be applicable as\n                           prior art.). A reference contains an “enabling disclosure” if the public was in\n                           possession of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed\n                           invention for applications or patents subject to the first inventor to file provisions\n                           of the AIA or at the time the invention was made for applications or patents subject to\n                           pre-AIA law. “Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have\n                           combined the publication’s description of the invention with his [or her] own knowledge\n                           to make the claimed invention.” <i>In re Donohue,</i> 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ\n                           619 (Fed. Cir. 1985).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“In determining that quantum of prior art disclosure which is necessary to declare an ... invention ‘not novel’ or ‘anticipated’ within section 102, the stated test is whether a reference contains an ‘enabling disclosure’... .” In reHoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). The disclosure in an assertedly anticipating reference must provide an enabling disclosure of the desired subject matter; mere naming or description of the subject matter is insufficient, if it cannot be produced without undue experimentation. Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054, 68 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (At issue was whether a prior art reference enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to produce Elan’s claimed transgenic mouse without undue experimentation. Without a disclosure enabling one skilled in the art to produce a transgenic mouse without undue experimentation, the reference would not be applicable as prior art.). A reference contains an “enabling disclosure” if the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for applications or patents subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA or at the time the invention was made for applications or patents subject to pre-AIA law. “Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication’s description of the invention with his [or her] own knowledge to make the claimed invention.” In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201808","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgzdp6jf"},{"id":"pb_vrnyyqao","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_vrnyyqao","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I.</b><b> 35 U.S.C. 102 REJECTIONS AND ADDITION OF EVIDENCE SHOWING REFERENCE IS OPERABLE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. 35 U.S.C. 102 REJECTIONS AND ADDITION OF EVIDENCE SHOWING REFERENCE IS OPERABLE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201800/b.0","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_rgzdp6jf","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. 35 U.S.C. 102 REJECTIONS AND ADDITION OF EVIDENCE SHOWING REFERENCE IS OPERABLE"},{"id":"pb_pzrkm7sq","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_pzrkm7sq","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201831\">It is possible to make a <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">35 U.S.C. 102</a></b> rejection even if\n                           the reference does not itself teach one of ordinary skill how to practice the\n                           invention, i.e., how to&nbsp;make the article disclosed or use the method disclosed. If\n                           the reference teaches every claimed element of the article or every claimed step of\n                           the method, secondary evidence, such as other patents or publications, can be cited\n                           to show public possession of the method of making the article or using the method.\n                           <i>In re Donohue,</i> 766 F.2d at 533, 226 USPQ at 621. See\n                           <b><a href=\"s2131.html#d0e203057\">MPEP §\n                                 2131.01</a></b> for more information on <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">35 U.S.C. 102</a></b>\n                           rejections using secondary references to show that the primary reference contains an\n                           “enabling disclosure.” \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"It is possible to make a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection even if the reference does not itself teach one of ordinary skill how to practice the invention, i.e., how to make the article disclosed or use the method disclosed. If the reference teaches every claimed element of the article or every claimed step of the method, secondary evidence, such as other patents or publications, can be cited to show public possession of the method of making the article or using the method. In re Donohue, 766 F.2d at 533, 226 USPQ at 621. See MPEP § 2131.01 for more information on 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections using secondary references to show that the primary reference contains an “enabling disclosure.”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201831","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgzdp6jf"},{"id":"se_gol75yji","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_gol75yji","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"stub-2131","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2131","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2131","section_number":"2131","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2131","children_ids":[]},{"id":"pb_skve4gfe","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_skve4gfe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II.</b><b> 35 U.S.C. 103 REJECTIONS AND USE OF INOPERATIVE PRIOR ART</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. 35 U.S.C. 103 REJECTIONS AND USE OF INOPERATIVE PRIOR ART","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201800/b.2","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_rgzdp6jf","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. 35 U.S.C. 103 REJECTIONS AND USE OF INOPERATIVE PRIOR ART"},{"id":"pb_trp47h4p","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_trp47h4p","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201850\">“Even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior\n                           art for all that it teaches.” <i>Beckman Instruments</i><i>v.</i><i>LKB Produkter AB,</i> 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed.\n                           Cir. 1989). Therefore, “a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the\n                           purpose of determining obviousness under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450\">35 U.S.C. 103</a></b>.” <i>Symbol\n                              Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc.,</i> 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247\n                           (Fed. Cir. 1991).\n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"“Even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches.” Beckman Instrumentsv.LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, “a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.” Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201850","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_rgzdp6jf"},{"id":"se_pnnyr2fz","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_pnnyr2fz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201868","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_02","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_02","section_number":"2121.02","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Compounds and Compositions — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art","children_ids":["pb_ikoc5brg","pb_gnhmsdev","pb_2wl77trx","pb_cbjwhvyp","pb_omhvqedp"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_ikoc5brg","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ikoc5brg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch2100_d223b3_22d93_10b\"><i>[Editor Note: This MPEP section is applicable regardless of whether an\n                              application is examined under the AIA or under pre-AIA law. For applications subject\n                              to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is\n                              \"before the effective filing date of the claimed invention\". For applications subject\n                              to <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35\n                                    U.S.C. 102</a></b>, the relevant time is \"at the time of the\n                              invention\". See <b><a href=\"s2150.html#ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e\">MPEP § 2150</a></b> et seq. Many of the\n                              court decisions discussed in this section involved applications or patents subject to\n                              <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA 35\n                                    U.S.C. 102</a></b>. These court decisions may be applicable to\n                              applications and patents subject to <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52\">AIA 35 U.S.C. 102</a></b> but the\n                              relevant time is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and not at\n                              the time of the invention.]</i></p>","rendered_text_plain":"[Editor Note: This MPEP section is applicable regardless of whether an application is examined under the AIA or under pre-AIA law. For applications subject to the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the AIA, the relevant time is \"before the effective filing date of the claimed invention\". For applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the relevant time is \"at the time of the invention\". See MPEP § 2150 et seq. Many of the court decisions discussed in this section involved applications or patents subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. These court decisions may be applicable to applications and patents subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 but the relevant time is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and not at the time of the invention.]","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_22d93_10b","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pnnyr2fz","tags":["editorial_note"]},{"id":"se_vqgrrn3n","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_vqgrrn3n","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"stub-2150","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2150","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2150","section_number":"2150","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2150","children_ids":[]},{"id":"pb_gnhmsdev","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_gnhmsdev","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>I.</b><b> ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE OR SYNTHESIZE</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE OR SYNTHESIZE","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201868/b.0","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_pnnyr2fz","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE OR SYNTHESIZE"},{"id":"pb_2wl77trx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_2wl77trx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201883\">Where a process for making the compound is not developed until after\n                           the date of invention, the mere naming of a compound in a reference, without more,\n                           cannot constitute a description of the compound. <i>In re Hoeksema,</i>\n                           399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). Note, however, that a reference is presumed\n                           operable until applicant provides facts rebutting the presumption of operability.\n                           <i>In re Sasse,</i> 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). Therefore,\n                           applicant must provide evidence showing that a process for making was not known at\n                           the relevant time. See the following subsection for the evidentiary standard to be\n                           applied. \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Where a process for making the compound is not developed until after the date of invention, the mere naming of a compound in a reference, without more, cannot constitute a description of the compound. In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). Note, however, that a reference is presumed operable until applicant provides facts rebutting the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, applicant must provide evidence showing that a process for making was not known at the relevant time. See the following subsection for the evidentiary standard to be applied.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201883","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pnnyr2fz"},{"id":"pb_cbjwhvyp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_cbjwhvyp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>II.</b><b> A REFERENCE DOES NOT CONTAIN AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” IF ATTEMPTS AT MAKING THE COMPOUND OR COMPOSITION WERE UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE RELEVANT TIME</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. A REFERENCE DOES NOT CONTAIN AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” IF ATTEMPTS AT MAKING THE COMPOUND OR COMPOSITION WERE UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE RELEVANT TIME","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201868/b.2","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_pnnyr2fz","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. A REFERENCE DOES NOT CONTAIN AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” IF ATTEMPTS AT MAKING THE COMPOUND OR COMPOSITION WERE UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE RELEVANT TIME"},{"id":"pb_omhvqedp","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_omhvqedp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201904\">When a prior art reference merely discloses the structure of the\n                           claimed compound, evidence showing that attempts to prepare that compound were\n                           unsuccessful before the relevant time will be adequate to show inoperability.\n                           <i>In re Wiggins,</i> 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973). However,\n                           the fact that an author of a publication did not attempt to make the compound\n                           disclosed, without more, will not overcome a rejection based on that publication.\n                           <i>In re Donohue,</i> 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (In\n                           this case, the examiner had made a rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302383\">pre-AIA&nbsp;35&nbsp;U.S.C.\n                                 102(b)</a></b> over a publication, which disclosed the claimed\n                           compound, in combination with two patents teaching a general process of making the\n                           particular class of compounds. The applicant submitted an affidavit stating that the\n                           authors of the publication had not actually synthesized the compound. The court held\n                           that the fact that the publication’s author did not synthesize the disclosed compound\n                           was immaterial to the question of reference operability. The patents were evidence\n                           that synthesis methods were well known. The court distinguished\n                           <i>Wiggins,</i> in which a very similar rejection was reversed. In\n                           <i>Wiggins,</i> attempts to make the compounds using the prior art\n                           methods were all unsuccessful.). Compare <i>In re Hoeksema,</i> 399 F.2d\n                           269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968) (A claim to a compound was rejected over a patent to\n                           <i>De Boer</i> which disclosed compounds similar in structure to those\n                           claimed (obvious homologs) and a process of making these compounds. Applicant\n                           responded with an affidavit by an expert named Wiley which stated that there was no\n                           indication in the <i>De Boer</i> patent that the process disclosed in\n                           <i>De Boer</i> could be used to produce the claimed compound and that\n                           he did not believe that the process disclosed in <i>De Boer</i> could be\n                           adapted to the production of the claimed compound. The court held that the facts\n                           stated in this affidavit were legally sufficient to overcome the rejection and that\n                           applicant need not show that all known processes are incapable of producing the\n                           claimed compound for this showing would be practically impossible.). \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"When a prior art reference merely discloses the structure of the claimed compound, evidence showing that attempts to prepare that compound were unsuccessful before the relevant time will be adequate to show inoperability. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973). However, the fact that an author of a publication did not attempt to make the compound disclosed, without more, will not overcome a rejection based on that publication. In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (In this case, the examiner had made a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over a publication, which disclosed the claimed compound, in combination with two patents teaching a general process of making the particular class of compounds. The applicant submitted an affidavit stating that the authors of the publication had not actually synthesized the compound. The court held that the fact that the publication’s author did not synthesize the disclosed compound was immaterial to the question of reference operability. The patents were evidence that synthesis methods were well known. The court distinguished Wiggins, in which a very similar rejection was reversed. In Wiggins, attempts to make the compounds using the prior art methods were all unsuccessful.). Compare In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968) (A claim to a compound was rejected over a patent to De Boer which disclosed compounds similar in structure to those claimed (obvious homologs) and a process of making these compounds. Applicant responded with an affidavit by an expert named Wiley which stated that there was no indication in the De Boer patent that the process disclosed in De Boer could be used to produce the claimed compound and that he did not believe that the process disclosed in De Boer could be adapted to the production of the claimed compound. The court held that the facts stated in this affidavit were legally sufficient to overcome the rejection and that applicant need not show that all known processes are incapable of producing the claimed compound for this showing would be practically impossible.).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201904","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pnnyr2fz"},{"id":"se_vtmhptfv","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_vtmhptfv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201937","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_03","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_03","section_number":"2121.03","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Plant Genetics — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art","children_ids":["pb_4otyu75d","pb_cqekzywe"],"revision_tag":"R-01.2024","parent_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_4otyu75d","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_4otyu75d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL MUST BE ABLE TO GROW AND CULTIVATE THE PLANT</b>","rendered_text_plain":"THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL MUST BE ABLE TO GROW AND CULTIVATE THE PLANT","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201937/b.0","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_vtmhptfv","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL MUST BE ABLE TO GROW AND CULTIVATE THE PLANT"},{"id":"pb_cqekzywe","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_cqekzywe","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201945\">When the claims are drawn to plants, the reference, combined with\n                           knowledge in the prior art, must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce\n                           the plant. <i>In re</i><i>LeGrice,</i> 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) (National Rose\n                           Society Annual of England and various other catalogues showed color pictures of the\n                           claimed roses and disclosed that applicant had raised the roses. The publications\n                           were published more than 1 year before applicant's filing date. The court held that\n                           the publications did not place the rose in the public domain. Information on the\n                           grafting process required to reproduce the rose was not included in the publications\n                           and such information was necessary for those of ordinary skill in the art (plant\n                           breeders) to reproduce the rose.). Compare <i>Ex parte</i><i>Thomson,</i> 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. &amp; Inter. 1992) (Seeds\n                           were commercially available more than 1 year prior to applicant’s filing date. One of\n                           ordinary skill in the art could grow the claimed cotton cultivar from the\n                           commercially available seeds. Thus, the publications describing the cotton cultivar\n                           had “enabled disclosures.” The Board distinguished <i>In re LeGrice</i>\n                           by finding that the catalogue picture of the rose of <i>In re LeGrice</i>\n                           was the only evidence in that case. There was no evidence of commercial availability\n                           in enabling form since the asexually reproduced rose could not be reproduced from\n                           seed. Therefore, the public would not have possession of the rose by its picture\n                           alone, but the public would have possession of the cotton cultivar based on the\n                           publications and the availability of the seeds.). In <i>In re Elsner,</i>\n                           381 F.3d 1125, 1126, 72 USPQ2d 1038, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2004), prior to the critical\n                           date of a plant patent application, the plant had been sold in Germany and a foreign\n                           Plant Breeder’s Rights (PBR) application for the same plant had been published in the\n                           Community Plant Variety Office <i>Official Gazette</i>. The court held\n                           that when (i) a publication identifies the plant, (ii) a foreign sale occurs that\n                           puts one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the plant itself, and (iii)\n                           such possession permits asexual reproduction of the plant without undue\n                           experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art, then that combination of facts\n                           and events directly conveys the essential knowledge of the invention and constitutes\n                           a <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302395\">pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.\n                                 102(b)</a></b> statutory bar.<i>Id.</i> at 1129, 72 USPQ2d\n                           at 1041. Although the court agreed with the Board that foreign sales may enable an\n                           otherwise non-enabling printed publication, the case was remanded for additional\n                           fact-finding in order to determine if the foreign sales of the plant were known to be\n                           accessible to the skilled artisan and if the skilled artisan could have reproduced\n                           the plant asexually after obtaining it without undue experimentation.\n                           <i>Id.</i> at 1131, 72 USPQ2d at 1043. See <b><a href=\"s2152.html#ch2100_d20033_2254b_3e0\">MPEP §\n                                 2152.02(d)</a></b> for information on foreign sales being prior art\n                           for applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"When the claims are drawn to plants, the reference, combined with knowledge in the prior art, must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the plant. In reLeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) (National Rose Society Annual of England and various other catalogues showed color pictures of the claimed roses and disclosed that applicant had raised the roses. The publications were published more than 1 year before applicant's filing date. The court held that the publications did not place the rose in the public domain. Information on the grafting process required to reproduce the rose was not included in the publications and such information was necessary for those of ordinary skill in the art (plant breeders) to reproduce the rose.). Compare Ex parteThomson, 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Seeds were commercially available more than 1 year prior to applicant’s filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art could grow the claimed cotton cultivar from the commercially available seeds. Thus, the publications describing the cotton cultivar had “enabled disclosures.” The Board distinguished In re LeGrice by finding that the catalogue picture of the rose of In re LeGrice was the only evidence in that case. There was no evidence of commercial availability in enabling form since the asexually reproduced rose could not be reproduced from seed. Therefore, the public would not have possession of the rose by its picture alone, but the public would have possession of the cotton cultivar based on the publications and the availability of the seeds.). In In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1126, 72 USPQ2d 1038, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2004), prior to the critical date of a plant patent application, the plant had been sold in Germany and a foreign Plant Breeder’s Rights (PBR) application for the same plant had been published in the Community Plant Variety Office Official Gazette. The court held that when (i) a publication identifies the plant, (ii) a foreign sale occurs that puts one of ordinary skill in the art in possession of the plant itself, and (iii) such possession permits asexual reproduction of the plant without undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art, then that combination of facts and events directly conveys the essential knowledge of the invention and constitutes a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) statutory bar.Id. at 1129, 72 USPQ2d at 1041. Although the court agreed with the Board that foreign sales may enable an otherwise non-enabling printed publication, the case was remanded for additional fact-finding in order to determine if the foreign sales of the plant were known to be accessible to the skilled artisan and if the skilled artisan could have reproduced the plant asexually after obtaining it without undue experimentation. Id. at 1131, 72 USPQ2d at 1043. See MPEP § 2152.02(d) for information on foreign sales being prior art for applications subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_vtmhptfv"},{"id":"se_m2bwsa3d","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_m2bwsa3d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"stub-2152","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2152","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2152","section_number":"2152","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2152","children_ids":[]},{"id":"se_7bh64z3d","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_7bh64z3d","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201980","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_04","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2121_04","section_number":"2121.04","chapter":"2100","depth":1,"title":"Apparatus and Articles — What Constitutes Enabling Prior Art","children_ids":["pb_ty5qqbh7","pb_i2drzkv7"],"revision_tag":"R-10.2019","parent_section_id":"se_7yiv5tlc"},{"id":"pb_ty5qqbh7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ty5qqbh7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b>PICTURES MAY CONSTITUTE AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE”</b>","rendered_text_plain":"PICTURES MAY CONSTITUTE AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE”","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201980/b.0","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_7bh64z3d","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"PICTURES MAY CONSTITUTE AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE”"},{"id":"pb_i2drzkv7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_i2drzkv7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-10.2019","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e201988\">Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling to put the public\n                           in the possession of the article pictured. Therefore, such an enabling picture may\n                           be&nbsp;used to reject claims to the article. However, the picture must show all the\n                           claimed structural features and how they are put together. <i>In re\n                              Bager,</i> 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for\n                           the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.”) (citing\n                           <i>Jockmus v. Leviton,</i> 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)). See also\n                           <b><a href=\"s2125.html#d0e202147\">MPEP §\n                                 2125</a></b> for a discussion of drawings as prior art. \n                        </p>","rendered_text_plain":"Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling to put the public in the possession of the article pictured. Therefore, such an enabling picture may be used to reject claims to the article. However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1931) (“Description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words.”) (citing Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)). See also MPEP § 2125 for a discussion of drawings as prior art.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201988","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_7bh64z3d"},{"id":"se_oz2beaos","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_oz2beaos","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-01.2024","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"stub-2125","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2125","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2125","section_number":"2125","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Section 2125","children_ids":[]}],"edges":[{"id":"e_cvrl5xxt","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cjbfucbu","target_id":"cs_s5wkckbn","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)","source_offset":{"start":256,"end":267}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201749","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_gviqz3jr","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_cjbfucbu","target_id":"se_gdeekbal","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.07","target_anchor":"d0e93668","source_offset":{"start":318,"end":331}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201749","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_6nzrjhca","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cjbfucbu","target_id":"cs_3kyp4jsw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","source_offset":{"start":342,"end":365},"signal":"see_also"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201749","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_2c3qr4yl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cjbfucbu","target_id":"cs_3kyp4jsw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","source_offset":{"start":433,"end":456}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201749","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_epowpp3u","edge_type":"quotes-from","source_id":"nq_t4pkhpo2","target_id":"cs_3kyp4jsw","properties":{"quoted_text":"“Consistent with the statutory framework and our precedent, we therefore hold that, during patent prosecution, an examiner is entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication or patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that prior art reference is enabling. As long as an examiner makes a proper prima facie case of anticipation by giving adequate notice under § 132, the burden shifts to the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of nonenablement.”","quoted_text_sha256":"83df1562d45ca2207de31bd5b85e2b80eaf07b021366b7bb0c3a010e04f392fe","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":483}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d29ba0_f13b_157","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_moxsycue","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_uycp4iym","target_id":"cs_3kyp4jsw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1289, 103 USPQ2d 1555, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2012)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":23},"pincite":"1289"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_1e87e_17","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_bsxwrz4y","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_jsmtij7d","target_id":"cs_ci4buzar","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 110, 106 USPQ2d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013)","source_offset":{"start":191,"end":202},"pincite":"110"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_29a0b_126bd_155","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_kydtaoux","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_rrmiommh","target_id":"se_gdeekbal","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 716.07","target_anchor":"d0e93668","source_offset":{"start":9,"end":22}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_299b6_1e8c6_31a","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_hobvjagu","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_sjysxtgo","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":297,"end":310}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201765","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_mq3rymu6","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_sjysxtgo","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":314,"end":317}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201765","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_gcw65xpb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_sjysxtgo","target_id":"cs_6mebsnoe","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 129 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1961)","source_offset":{"start":418,"end":431}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201765","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_aaz6hc6b","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_5h2ftcfy","target_id":"cs_i5n3crhs","properties":{"citation_text":"Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006)","source_offset":{"start":356,"end":394},"pincite":"1383"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201783","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_xeu6qki7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_5h2ftcfy","target_id":"cs_zkyi4qmm","properties":{"citation_text":"Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326, 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":463,"end":500},"pincite":"1326","signal":"cf"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201783","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_ca66yg2l","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_5h2ftcfy","target_id":"se_zvhantvc","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2122","target_anchor":"d0e201997","source_offset":{"start":572,"end":583}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201783","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_tftt6aov","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_yxvhmdjj","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":136,"end":147}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201808","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_6dmz7rpb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yxvhmdjj","target_id":"cs_zidjuomb","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968)","source_offset":{"start":228,"end":241}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201808","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_5lx3ulhd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yxvhmdjj","target_id":"cs_waxvoaoo","properties":{"citation_text":"Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054, 68 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003)","source_offset":{"start":527,"end":585},"pincite":"1054"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201808","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_53bwz6xa","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_yxvhmdjj","target_id":"cs_mwtlywgs","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":1508,"end":1521}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201808","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_lvbckujb","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_pzrkm7sq","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":25,"end":38}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201831","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_hbe67lso","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_pzrkm7sq","target_id":"cs_mwtlywgs","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533, 226 USPQ 619, 621 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":469,"end":482},"pincite":"533"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201831","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_ctwvfrao","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_pzrkm7sq","target_id":"se_gol75yji","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2131.01","target_anchor":"d0e203057","source_offset":{"start":522,"end":536}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201831","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_oaw6rasu","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_pzrkm7sq","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":561,"end":574}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201831","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_e7brv33z","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_trp47h4p","target_id":"cs_b6owfmle","properties":{"citation_text":"Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1989)","source_offset":{"start":96,"end":133},"pincite":"1551"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201850","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_2au4j7ee","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_trp47h4p","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":306,"end":319}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201850","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_ul2jphkd","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_trp47h4p","target_id":"cs_fcfzhyg6","properties":{"citation_text":"Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991)","source_offset":{"start":322,"end":356},"pincite":"1578"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201850","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_xuyeggds","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ikoc5brg","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":334,"end":347}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_22d93_10b","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_cf2shbur","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ikoc5brg","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":532,"end":545}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_22d93_10b","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_hgrsrabj","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_ikoc5brg","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":630,"end":643}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_22d93_10b","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_w7dxnnzi","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_ikoc5brg","target_id":"se_vqgrrn3n","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2150","target_anchor":"ch2100_d2002f_22805_16e","source_offset":{"start":406,"end":417}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_d223b3_22d93_10b","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_vbf75noi","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2wl77trx","target_id":"cs_zidjuomb","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968)","source_offset":{"start":201,"end":215}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201883","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_c3ptt7nn","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_2wl77trx","target_id":"cs_s5wkckbn","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)","source_offset":{"start":383,"end":394}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201883","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_tgqxu4q3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omhvqedp","target_id":"cs_3pmcx3zu","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973)","source_offset":{"start":222,"end":235}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201904","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_ccjddnrf","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omhvqedp","target_id":"cs_mwtlywgs","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985)","source_offset":{"start":446,"end":459}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201904","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_5wgfn4lv","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_omhvqedp","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":568,"end":584}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201904","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_2y5m4qw5","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_omhvqedp","target_id":"cs_zidjuomb","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968)","source_offset":{"start":1280,"end":1294},"signal":"compare"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201904","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_jykkuhak","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"cs_d6ust2mw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962)","source_offset":{"start":163,"end":175}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_ilkcerh7","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"cs_kcbtcmgn","properties":{"citation_text":"Ex parte Thomson, 24 USPQ2d 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)","source_offset":{"start":771,"end":786},"signal":"compare"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_pmgtxepp","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"cs_d6ust2mw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962)","source_offset":{"start":1135,"end":1148}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_m63k7u45","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"cs_d6ust2mw","properties":{"citation_text":"In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962)","source_offset":{"start":1202,"end":1215}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_kqw6bwf3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"cs_gegbaazp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1126, 72 USPQ2d 1038, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2004)","source_offset":{"start":1597,"end":1609},"pincite":"1126"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_tsgre6ld","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"st_jftolmqq","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102(b)","specificity":"subsection","source_offset":{"start":2344,"end":2360}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_mjbrdxra","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_cqekzywe","target_id":"se_m2bwsa3d","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2152.02(d)","target_anchor":"ch2100_d20033_2254b_3e0","source_offset":{"start":2837,"end":2854}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201945","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_stw6v4fm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2drzkv7","target_id":"cs_n3mocofe","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bager, 47 F.2d 951, 953, 8 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1931)","source_offset":{"start":291,"end":302},"pincite":"953"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201988","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_uxjaklvh","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_i2drzkv7","target_id":"cs_rpso7efn","properties":{"citation_text":"Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)","source_offset":{"start":453,"end":471}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201988","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}},{"id":"e_4gxrucfg","edge_type":"cross-references","source_id":"pb_i2drzkv7","target_id":"se_oz2beaos","properties":{"link_text":"MPEP § 2125","target_anchor":"d0e202147","source_offset":{"start":511,"end":522}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2121.html","source_anchor":"d0e201988","source_sha256":"d4daff53dfc39613039a897e6be3471c315e85f1513271555c9e58db08e55d31"}}]}}