NYIPLA Amicus Brief.pdf: Supporting a strong written description requirement: "By the time of the O'Reilly v. Morse decision in 1853, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, it was understood that attempting to dominate an entire field by generic functional claiming was prohibited when the applicant had invented and disclosed only limited techniques or apparatus to carry out such function. Though phrased differently, this doctrine has continuing vitality and is today most closely embodied in the requirement that the specification enable the full scope of the claimed invention."
Professors Janis & Holbrook.pdf: Section 112 does not support a separate written description requirement – not even one limited to the context of new matter.
Morris.DOC: The text of Section 112 does not create a separate written description requirement. Professor Morris suggests giving teeth to Section 112p2 in requiring the applicant to "particularly point out and distinctly claim what he regarded as his invention."
Novozymes.pdf: WD should be limited to new matter issues.
Holman in Support of Neither Party.PDF: The genus and species possession requirements unjustifiably discriminate against biotech inventions by creating a technology-focused super-enablement requirement. [Read Prof. Holman's Biotech IP Blog where he is following the case.]
University of California (and other major patent-holding universities): The requirements prejudice university researchers who "often make the most important basic science discoveries. . . . As a result [of the written description requirement], university researchers are denied the recognition and reward of inventorship due solely to lack of a available resources rather than lack of inventive contribution."