SEARCH

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

Friday, March 19, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Den Hartog et al GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

Ex Parte Li McCOLLUM 101/112(1) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Section 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and specific. A substantial utility requires:

show[ing] that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current
form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research.
Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use
must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available
benefit to the public.
In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id. In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an asserted use must also show that [the] claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.
[T]he PTO has the initial burden of challenging a presumptively correct
assertion of utility in the disclosure. Only after the PTO provides evidence
showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the
asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant to provide rebuttal
evidence sufficient to convince such a person of the invention’s asserted
utility.
In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

“Enablement, or utility, is determined as of the application filing date.”
Id. at 1567 n.19. However, post-filing evidence “can be used to substantiate any doubts as to the asserted utility [when it] pertains to the accuracy of a statement already in the specification.” Id.

In addition, “[i]t is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.”
In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1378.

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . .
.2106, 2107.01

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01,2107.03, 2164.01(c),2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte McDonnell et al OWENS 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP

Ex Parte Nishizawa et al OWENS 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Rovito et al GARRIS 102(b) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.

Ex Parte Hueffer et al OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Lettmann et al PAK 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Lewin et al HOFF 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Zhou et al MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Eurlings et al MARTIN 102(b)/102(e) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cox et al STAICOVICI 103(a) REED SMITH LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bhatti et al PATE III 102/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Ex Parte Kalloo et al HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE PC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Watler et al SIU 101/102(e)/103(a) FROST BROWN TODD, LLC

No comments :