Opinion ID: 2787938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enablement of Magnusson

Text: Because the Board considered enablement based on an erroneous construction of overwriting, we vacate the Board’s enablement determination with respect to the overwriting claims—claims 2–4, 15, 16, and 18–21—and remand for the Board to make the first determination of enablement with respect to those claims. Oracle, however, also argues that Magnusson is not enabled for claims 1 and 8, which do not include the overwriting limitation. In determining whether a prior art reference is enabled, we ask “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation based on the disclosure of that particular document.” Morsa, 713 F.3d at 110 (emphasis in original) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112). Oracle argues that, because Magnusson does not explain how the “TRANSLATED” instruction is introduced, it is not enabled with respect to the “generating” and “representing” steps in claims 1 and 8, respectively. See ’205 patent col. 13, ll. 48–51 (“[G]enerating, at runtime, a new virtual machine instruction that represents or references one or more native instructions that can be executed instead of said first virtual machine instruction . . . .”); id. col. 14 ll. 23–25 (“[R]epresenting said at least one native machine instruction with a new virtual machine instruction that is executed after the compiling of the function . . . .”). The examiner, 3 however, 3 The Board did not provide any analysis of this is- sue in its opinion; it merely credited the examiner’s analysis. Board Decision, 2013 WL 6217845, at  (“We have similarly considered the record and we find that the arguments and evidence submitted by [Oracle] are not 10 ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC. extensively reviewed the record and found person of ordinary skill would have known how to introduce the “TRANSLATED” instruction to meet the generating and representing steps. J.A. 31–32. Oracle fails to provide any explanation as to how these findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Oracle’s remaining arguments are also unpersuasive. Contrary to Oracle’s assertions, the examiner did not base his finding of enablement on a comparison between the disclosure in Magnusson and the disclosure in the ’205 patent. Instead, the examiner merely noted that the specification of the ’205 patent did not even have the level of detail that Oracle was arguing was necessary in Magnusson. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Rather the Board’s observation that appellant did not provide the type of detail in his specification that he now argues is necessary in prior art references supports the Board’s finding that one skilled in the art would have known how to implement the features of the references and would have concluded that the reference disclosures would have been enabling.”). Furthermore, the mere fact that the expert witnesses for both sides were persons of extraordinary skill, does not preclude the examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill would recognize the errors in Magnusson. Even though Oracle’s expert may have disagreed, we cannot say that the examiner’s determination of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore conclude that Magnusson is an enabling reference with respect to claims 1 and 8 and affirm the Board’s holding that these claims are anticipated. sufficient to overcome the presumption of enablement relied upon by the Examiner.”). ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC. 11