Is a working example required to satisfy enablement?

Enablement is a requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 that dictates the specification must be sufficient so that a person skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. A working example, while beneficial, is not mandatory. Instead, the specification can include prophetic examples—these are descriptions of how one would make or use the invention based on predictions of success rather than direct experience.

The law emphasizes that the enabling disclosure should provide enough information for a skilled individual to replicate the invention, regardless of whether that information comes from actual working examples or well-founded predictions of what can be achieved. The key is that the information provided must impart sufficient knowledge, not necessarily through direct experimentation but through logical conclusions drawn from the information and teachings within the patent.

Other options fall short because they either demand a working example regardless of context or suggest that complexity alone could dictate the necessity of examples, which does not align with the flexibility permitted by the law regarding prophetic examples. Thus, the idea that it can be prophetic is fundamentally correct, ensuring a broader interpretation of what constitutes adequate enablement.