1122 (Fed.Cir.2008), or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement, Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed.Cir.1997). We also reject the characterization, cited by Ariad, of the court’s written description doctrine as a “super enablement” standard for chemical and biotechnology inventions. The doctrine never created a heightened requirement to provide a nucleotide-by-nucleotide recitation of the entire genus of claimed genetic material; it has always expressly permitted the disclosure of structural features common to the members of the genus. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1569; see also Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1073 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). It also has not just been applied to chemical
holding the written description requirement satisfied by a representative number of sequences of the claimed genus of enzymes holding that written description requires more than a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention holding generic interference count to scroll compressor supported by written description of foreign priority application the court stated a specification may within the meaning of 35 usc  112  1 contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without describing all species that claim encompasses holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class holding claims to a broad genus of genetic material invalid because the specification disclosed only one particular species