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

Thursday, January 27, 2011


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Sullivan 10/950,793 NAGUMO 102(b)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LATIMER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLP EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

An enabling specification must teach one of ordinary skill in the art how "to make and use the full scope of the cliamed invention without undue experimentation." Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F. 3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (internal quote and citation omitted; emphasis added). Reports in sufficiently reputable scientific journals of the first successful practice of claimed subject matter, published after the filing of an application for patent, can suggest strongly that the earlier filed descriptions in a patent specification are not enabled. Enzo Biochem, In.c v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F3d 1362, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As our reviewing court has explained, "[t]ossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure." Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366. When "the claimed invention is the application of an unpredictable technology in the early stages of development, an enabling description in the specification must provide those skilled in the art with a specific and useful teaching." Id. at 1367-68.

The Nature journals, including Nature Nanotechnology, are peer-reviewed journals that seek to publish papers that "represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature journal rather than the best of the specialized journals."15 Similarly, the journal Science seeks to publish "those papers that are most influential in their fields and that will significantly advance scientific understanding."16 Both journals are extremely selective and highly regarded.

15 See, e.g., Peer-Review Policy, (last visited 30 December 2010).

16 See, e.g., Science: General Information for Authors, (last visited 30 December 2010).

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.,188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129(Fed. Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . 2164.06(b)

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/426,038 MacDONALD 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELBY, GEVELL V

2617 Ex Parte Seisenberger et al 10/496,886 MacDONALD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

2625 Ex Parte Patton et al 10/454,112 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) Gerald W. Maliszewski EXAMINER KASSA, HILINA S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Pfeiffer et al 11/700,001 O’NEILL 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Luukkainen 11/004,867 BARRETT 103(a) JAMES C. LYDON EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN



3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Reineck 11/085,643 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DICKSON, PAUL N

An anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference. Rather, disclosures in a reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear and explicit that those skilled in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (CCPA 1962).


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Coronado et al 11/335,297 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) John H. Lee, Assistant Laboratory Counsel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/Zilka-Kotab EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

1796 Ex Parte Goepfert et al 10/354,536 BAHR 101/112(1)/103(a) HONEYWELL/FOGG

2600 Communications

2617 Ex Parte Hiller et al 10/334,090 MacDONALD 103(a) Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC EXAMINER SAMS, MATTHEW C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Albrecht 10/885,980 HORNER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132(a) MUSKIN & CUSICK LLC EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K

See Go Medical Industries Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d 1264, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that a drawing submitted with an application was insufficient to allow others to practice the best mode for a catheter where the distance from the stop member to the distal end of a sheath was 1.5 cm, because there was no indication that the figure was drawn to any particular scale). “[P]atent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group. Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (in which the patent owner’s argument hinged on an inference drawn from certain figures about the quantitative relationship between the respective widths of the groove and fins); see also In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.”).

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . 2125

Wright, In re, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2125, 2145

No comments :