“The description shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.” (Article 5: The Description)

“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.” (35 USC Section 112. Note that this covers enablement and written description. Enablement is the relevant consideration here)

“The European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.” (EPC Article 83: Disclosure of the Invention)

“The disclosure of the claimed invention is considered sufficiently clear and complete if it provides information which is sufficient to allow the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art as of the international filing date, without undue experimentation.” (PCT GL 5.45)

“even though the statute does not use the term ‘undue experimentation,’ it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation.” (MPEP 2164.01)

“the description must disclose any feature essential for carrying out the invention in sufficient detail to render it apparent to the skilled person how to put the invention into practice….There are some instances where even a very broad field is sufficiently exemplified by a limited number of examples or even one example... In these latter cases the application must contain, in addition to the examples, sufficient information to allow the person skilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill” (EPO Exam GL at Part C Chapter II 4.9)

“Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is needed to carry out the claimed invention include:

(i) the breadth of the claims;

(ii) the nature of the invention;

(iii) the general knowledge of a person skilled in the art;

(iv) the level of predictability in the art;

(v) the amount of direction provided in the application, including references to prior art; and

(vi) the amount of experimentation required to carry out the claimed invention on the basis of the disclosure.” (PCT GL 5.47)

“Evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:

1. the breadth of the claims,

2. the nature of the invention,

3. the state of the prior art,

4. the level of one of ordinary skill,

5. the level of predictability in the art,

6. the amount of direction provided by the inventor,

7. the existence of working examples, and

8. the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.” [MPEP 2164.01(a)]

Part II.A of the EPO case law sets out the following considerations under sufficiency:

1. Sufficiency is assessed on the basis of the application as a whole- all parts of the application are relevant for assessing sufficiency.

2. Knowledge of skilled person relevant for assessing sufficiency. CGK can be used to supplement the information in an application. References can also be used to enable the skilled person to carry out an invention.

3. Clarity and completeness of disclosure. An invention is in principle sufficiently disclosed if at least one way is clearly indicated enabling the person skilled in the art to carry out the invention, but only if it allows the invention to be performed in the whole range claimed rather than only in some members of the claimed class to be obtained.

4. Reproducibility without undue burden. A reasonable amount of trial and error is permissible, but the skilled person must have at his disposal, either in the specification or on the basis of common general knowledge, adequate information leading to success through the evaluation of initial failures.

Article 6 Comparison / Review:

PCT	USPTO	EPO
“The claim or claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. Claims shall be clear and concise. They shall be fully supported by the description.” (PCT Article 6: The claims)	“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.” (35 USC Section 112. Note that this covers enablement and written description. Written description is the relevant consideration here)	“The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.” (EPC Article 84: The claims)
“there must be a basis in the description for the subject matter of every claim and that the scope of the claims must not be broader than is justified by the description and drawings.” (PCT GL 5.43)	"a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." (MPEP 2163)	“there must be a basis in the description for the subject-matter of every claim and that the scope of the claims must not be broader than is justified by the extent of the description and drawings and also the contribution to the art.” (EP Exam GL Part C, III, 6.1)
“a claim is regarded as supported by the description unless, exceptionally, there are well-founded reasons for believing that the person skilled in the art would be unable, on the basis of the information given in the application as filed, to extend the particular teaching of the description to the whole of the field claimed by using routine methods of experimentation or analysis.” (PCT GL 5.44)	“There is a strong presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed… Consequently, rejection of an original claim for lack of written description should be rare.” (MPEP 2163)	“a claim should be regarded as supported by the description unless there are well-founded reasons for believing that the skilled person would be unable, on the basis of the information given in the application as filed, to extend the particular teaching of the description to the whole of the field claimed by using routine methods of experimentation or analysis.” (EP Exam GL Part C, III, 6.3)
“Support must, however, relate to the features of the claimed invention; vague statements or assertions having no technical or other relevant content provide no basis.” (PCT GL 5.44)		“Support must, however, be of a technical character; vague statements or assertions having no technical content provide no basis.” (EP Exam GL Part C, III, 6.3)
“The examiner should raise an objection of lack of support only if there are well-founded reasons. Where an objection is raised, the reasons, where possible, should be supported specifically by a published document.” (PCT GL 5.44)	The examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize that the written description of the invention provides support for the claims.” (MPEP 2163)	“The examiner should raise an objection of lack of support only if he has well-founded reasons….. Where objection is raised, the reasons should, where possible, be supported specifically by a published document.” (EP Exam GL Part C, III, 6.3)

Amended Reasons

Amended Reason	Date Amended
	18 Oct 2023
Publishing for testing	06 Jun 2023