"Full scope" enablement -- i.e. that the entire scope of the claim is enabled under 35 USC 112 -- has been identified as a requirement in case law. See here. Also from MPEP 2164.08:
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'."
Does such a "full scope" requirement also apply to non-obviousness/103? The typical inquiry for obviousness is whether "the subject matter as a whole was obvious". Therefore, does this permit that some of the scope is obvious while the claim as a whole can still be deemed non-obvious? According to the following CAFC case analysis, it appears that all claim scope must be non-obvious:
According to the Court, the district court incorrectly focused on whether specific compounds containing a C1-amide group, like bimatoprost, were rendered obvious when the proper analysis should focus on whether “any compounds within the broad genus claimed by the ’029 patent, including those that did not have the C1-amide groups, were obvious at the time of the invention.”
However, I feel like I have seen broad issued claims that would seem to encompass obvious species.