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

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Tuesday September 14, 2010


1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Miesenbock et al 10/452,879 WALSH 102(b)/102(e)/103(a)/112(1) LARSON & ANDERSON, LLC Examiner Name: LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ

“Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods.” Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . 2163

Ex Parte Ziegler et al 10/837,755 SCHEINER 112(2)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP Examiner Name: SASAN, ARADHANA

[A] disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.

In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

“[I]t is incumbent upon the Patent Office . . . to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.” Id. at 224. In other words, the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification . . . this includes . . . providing sufficient reasons for doubting any assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.

In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2107.01, 2164.03, 2164.01(a), 2164.04, 2164.05(a), 2164.06(b), 2164.08

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 10/602,468 WARREN 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP Examiner Name: AUSTIN, AARON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Freed et al 09/900,515 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A Examiner Name: MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Aoki 10/253,662 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, P.L.C. Examiner Name: VO, QUANG N


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Rhodes et al 10/871,242 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Michael G. Fletcher FLETCHER YODER Examiner Name: LINDSAY JR, WALTER LEE


1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wightman et al 10/821,335 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Examiner Name: DESAI, RITA J

Ex Parte Wikström et al 11/790,465 WALSH 251/112(1) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Examiner Name: DESAI, RITA J

The Doyle decision distinguishes between the circumstance where subject matter sought on reissue could not have been prosecuted originally, e.g., because of a restriction requirement, and the circumstance where subject matter, e.g., a linking claim, could have been sought in the original application. Doyle, 293 F.3d at 1361. Doyle explains that a linking claim is distinguishable from claims precluded by the Orita doctrine if the linking claim could have been prosecuted in the application from which it was restricted. “The so-called Orita doctrine [] precludes a reissue applicant from obtaining substantially identical claims to those of nonelected groups identified in an examiner’s restriction requirement when such claims could not have been prosecuted in the application from which they were restricted.” Id. at 1359 (emphasis added). The Doyle court thus distinguished the Orita doctrine on the ground that Doyle’s “linking claims not only could have but should have been prosecuted with the elected group.” (Id. at 1360, emphasis in original.)

Doyle, In re, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.01

Orita, In re, 550 F.2d 1277, 193 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.01, 1457

Ex Parte Wolf et al 10/632,725 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)ALLISON JOHNSON, P.A. Examiner Name: WESSENDORF, TERESA D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Maschke 11/408,863 SILVERBERG 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION Examiner Name: GINSBERG, OREN ISAAC



Ex Parte Banerjee et al


Ex Parte Salter


Ex Parte Alvite et al
Ex Parte Bonavia et al
Ex Parte Cook et al
Ex Parte deBlanc et al
Ex Parte Feil et al
Ex Parte Goelz et al
Ex Parte Guschin et al
Ex Parte Hao et al
Ex Parte Himmel et al
Ex Parte Lawrence
Ex Parte Liu et al
Ex Parte Ponce et al
Ex Parte Morris et al
Ex Parte Specht
Ex Parte Tran et al
Ex Parte Varpela et al
Ex Parte Veres et al


Ex Parte Tabbara
Ex Parte Vytas et al

No comments :