Thursday April 22, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kivits et al 10/484,255 LEBOVITZ 102(a)/103(a) nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSON

Ex Parte Sakuma et al 10/502,404 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Appellants also argue that a conclusion of obviousness cannot be based on equivalence known only to an applicant (Reply Br. 3 (citing In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 598 (CCPA 1958)).

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Collins et al 10/461,022 PAK 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Adams 10/158,353 THOMAS 103(a) PATE PIERCE & BAIRD

Ex Parte Leveille et al 11/419,936 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

Ex Parte Martin et al 10/484,541 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

Ex Parte Barboi et al 10/981,837 HOMERE 101/112(2)/102(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/357,949 HUGHES 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec

Thus, “the description must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharmas. v. Eli Lilly and Co., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Id.

“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369 at *12 (citing Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563.)

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Coles et al 10/393,729 NAPPI 103(a) JOHN C. MORAN, ATTORNEY, P.C.

Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/537,417 HOFF 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Spinelli 11/360,401 HOFF 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bellick et al 10/821,334 PATE III 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP

Ex Parte Kummer et al 10/823,032 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Vanderbilt et al 10/640,131 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Hill 10/702,406 GREEN 103(a) MATTHEW R. JENKINS, ESQ.

Ex Parte Podlich et al 10/874,813 LEBOVITZ 103(A)/112(1)/101 POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Zargham et al 10/013,091 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hogan 10/667,680 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Woodcock Washburn LLP