Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, September 18, 2014

minerals, wands, vaeck, wertheim

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Kaijima et al 12254697 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy LY, ANH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Sebire et al 11227923 - (D) LaVIER 103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Corporation IRACE, MICHAEL

2656 Ex Parte Green 11365081 - (D) SAADAT 103 Wolfe-SBMC FLANDERS, ANDREW C

2681 Ex Parte Doan et al 12202477 - (D) SHIANG 103 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON LU, SHIRLEY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Delafoy et al 11628222 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion that may be reached by weighing the following factual considerations: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Wands at 737.

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) ,   706.03(b) ,   2161.01 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.06 ,   2164.06(b)

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01 ,   2144.08 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(c) ,   2164.03 ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08
...
New Grounds of Rejection
Written Description: Claims 43, 47–65, and 67–69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. ...

As correctly noted by the Examiner, independent claim 43 recites the open ended limitations of “greater than 430 W/cm” and “greater than 180 W/cm.” See Ans. 17. These limitations “do not meet the written description requirement because the phrase ‘at least’ ha[s] no upper limit and cause[s] the claim to read literally on [an] embodiment outside of” the disclosed range of values. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) 706.03(o) ,   1302.01 ,   2144.05 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.04 ,   2163.05

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Vargo et al 12785136 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O Conley Rose, P.C. ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Choudhury et al 12134255 - (D) HUME 101/103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2193 Ex Parte Kapoor et al 11420375 - (D) HORVATH 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Jensen et al 12084786 - (D) HANLON 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC FIGUEROA, FELIX O

2894 Ex Parte Czubatyj et al 11743459 - (D) HANLON 102/103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP LAURENZI, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Caminade 12036582 - (D) GREENHUT 103 HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. KELLEHER, WILLIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,221,387 et al 10/444,261 95001958 - (D) BRANCH 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP SECTION  HOTALING, JOHN M original RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR