PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Friday, December 11, 2009


1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dvoracek et al PRATS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.

Ex Parte Evans et al WALSH 112(1) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C.

Ex Parte Hassan et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY

For a reference to anticipate a claim “[e]very element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. , 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).

Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co. , 868 F.2d 1226, 9 USPQ2d 1913 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131

For example, to anticipate a chemical compound a “reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed compound or direct those skilled in the art to the compound without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (further noting that “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a § 103, obviousness rejection, . . . but it has no place in the making of a § 102, anticipation rejection.” Id. at 587-88.).


2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Schultz STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC

The USPTO is not required in the course of prosecution to interpret claims in the same manner as courts are required to during infringement proceedings. “It would be inconsistent with the role assigned to the PTO in issuing a patent to require it to interpret claims in the same manner as judges who, post-issuance, operate under the assumption the patent is valid.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

The question then is whether the PTO's interpretation of the disputed claim language is “reasonable.” Id. at 1055.

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a) , 2181

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Lin HAIRSTON 102(e) Siemens Corporation

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Thaler et al BARRETT 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.


1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Elliott et al SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

No comments :