Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. 323 F.3d 956 C.A.Fed. (N.Y.),2002.

1
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. 323 F.3d
956 C.A.Fed. (N.Y.),2002.
(Rader, dissenting at 981) In sum, the written
description language has been in the statute
since 1870, yet only since 1967 has case law
separated it from enablement. The separation
itself is not disruptive of the patent system,
however, because the doctrine operated solely to
police priority.
2
Rader, contd

• the aberrant form of WD requires far more
  specific disclosure than enablement. Because it
  . . . requires a far more demanding disclosure,
  defendants will have no need to invoke
  enablement, but will proceed directly to the more
  demanding . . . requirements. Thus, the new breed
  of WD in this case threatens to further disrupt
  the patent system by replacing enablement the
  statutory test for adequate disclosure.