Atlas Power (plaintiff) owned a patent directed to a new blasting agent which was an improvement on a prior Atlas product. Soon after Atlas developed the optimal blasting agent and secured patent protection, Du Pont (defendant) developed an improved blasting agent, and Atlas sued for infringement. Du Pont argued that the Atlas patent was overly broad, specifically in that the disclosure was a listing of numerous elements that did not enable one of skill in the art to make the claimed invention. The district court disagreed with Du Pont and found that the Atlas claims were valid and enabled. Du Pont appealed.