I. Introduction The Supreme Court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ("CCPA"), and later the Federal Circuit have worked in concert to construct a doctrinal framework in which enablement, anticipation, and obviousness are all closely interrelated. Building upon scarce statutory support, the courts have grafted an enablement requirement into the obviousness and anticipation inquiries, thus blending these otherwise distinct doctrines. Enablement is required for patentability under [sections] 112, for anticipation under [sections] 102, and for obviousness under [sections] 103. Each of these doctrines invokes the same analysis with different reference points. Enablement for patentability requires that the specification enable a person having ordinary skill in the art (a "PHOSITA") (1) to "make and use" the invention. (2) For anticipation, a single prior art reference must enable the invention. And for obviousness, the combination of prior art references, taken as a whole, must enable the claimed invention. The persistent intertwining of these three doctrines led Professor Donald Chisum to analogize the enablement, anticipation, and obviousness standards to "three strands of an intricately braided cord." (3)
