Source: https://www.straffordpub.com/products/section-112-a-enablement-and-written-description-leveraging-ccpa-and-federal-circuit-decisions-2018-09-18
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:33:12+00:00

Document:
This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel on leveraging decisions by the CCPA and the Federal Circuit regarding application of §112 written description and enablement requirements. The panel will examine lessons learned from these decisions, and offer strategies to overcome the challenges of §112.
Practitioners face §112(a) issues all the time, in examiner rejections during prosecution, patentability challenges in post-grant reviews (PGRs) before PTAB, and validity challenges before the courts. In addition, §112(a) written description support is required for entitlement to priority date, so practitioners may find themselves facing §112(a) issues in inter partes reviews (IPRs) to either defend a priority date assertion of a patent claim or attack a priority date assertion of a reference raised by a petitioner. Furthermore, in motions to amend in post-grant proceedings, 37 C.F.R. §42.121/42.221 requires patent owners to show support for any proposed substitute claims.
Could a POSITA conclude with “reasonable certainty” that patentee had “possession” of claimed invention?
Any incorporation by reference issues?
The CCPA developed a rich body of §112 jurisprudence, which the Federal Circuit adopted as binding precedent, providing a treasure trove of arguments for practitioners. Counsel can draw on these CCPA cases, as well as PTAB and Federal Circuit cases for guidance in presenting evidence and arguments of written description support and enablement.
Listen as our authoritative panel of U.S. patent attorneys examines the lessons from select CCPA, PTAB and Federal Circuit decisions to avoid repeating past mistakes and to truly promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences as mandated by the Constitution.
What steps can counsel for patentees take to meet the written description and enablement requirements and withstand invalidity/unpatentability challenges based on written description and enablement?
What steps can be taken to fix written description and enablement problems?
What steps should patent counsel take going forward to avoid repeating mistakes of the past?

References: §112
 §112
 §112
 §112
 §112
 §42
 §112