The Court considered whether a patent specification for erectile-dysfunction treatment satisfied disclosure obligations under s. 27(3) of the Patent Act where cascading claims ended with two individual compounds but did not identify the tested effective compound.
The Court held sufficiency must be assessed on the specification as a whole and not by isolating a single surviving claim under s. 58.
Because a skilled person would need further testing to determine which claimed compound worked, the specification did not enable successful use of the invention from the disclosure alone.
The appeal was allowed, the prohibition order was set aside, and the patent was held invalid for insufficient disclosure.
