With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". written description requirement was satisfied by disclosure of specific inhibitor molecules. See Trial Tr. 53; 57-58; 60; 78-85, Apr. 27, 2006. But as Ariad admits, figure 43 was not disclosed until 1991. Because figure 43 was not in the 1989 application, neither it nor Dr. Kadesch’s testimony regarding it can offer substantial evidence for the jury determination. See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64. The only other testimony of Dr. Kadeseh with regard to I-éB was that it existed in 1989 and that one of ordinary skill could through experimentation isolate natural IéB. See Trial Tr. at 62-85. In the context of this invention, a vague functional description and an invitation for further research does not constitute written disclosure of a specific inhibitor. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1566 (<HOLDING>); see also id. at 1567 (“[A] description which

A: holding that written description requires more than a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention
B: holding a determination that an invention was onsale within the meaning of the statute requires that a sale be operable the complete invention claimed be embodied in or obvious from the device offered for sale and the sale or offer be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes
C: 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
D: holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description
A.