SEARCH

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Tuesday May 25, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Christakos et al 11/177,790 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

Ex Parte Liu 10/870,766 GREEN 103(a) DR. GEORGE DACAI LIU EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

Ex Parte Marcel et al 10/315,445 PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUNNER, BRIDGET E

"The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention." Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).


Written Description Training Materials (http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written.pdf)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Iyengar 10/629,284 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Moderegger et al 09/944,379 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/679,725 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Lochner et al 09/994,520 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, DUC Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Apps 11/099,423 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Clark et al 10/901,884 BAHR 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

Ex parte FELLOWES, INC. 90/010,137 5,789,051 EASTHOM 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK, & MORTIMER Third Party Requester: SHEWCHUK IP SERVICES EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be
gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is
technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or
process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the
desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is
universal - and even common-sensical - we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of
suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question
is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him
capable of combining the prior art references.

Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

inter partes

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.p.A.,Requester and Respondent v. CHEMI S.p.A., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,138 6,645,742 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI

In order for a showing of unexpected results to overcome the teachings of the prior art, the results presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48 (CCPA 1979).

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)

No comments :