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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

mayo, prometheus

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Dunlap 11384004 - (D) GRIMES 101/103 MOORE PATENTS SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

Further, in the time since the Examiner’s Answer was written, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided additional guidance regarding the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct 1289 (2012).

In Prometheus, the Court considered claims that included the active steps of administering a drug to a subject and determining the level of a metabolite in the subject. See Id. at 1295. The claims also included “wherein” clauses, id., that “set forth laws of nature—namely, relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or cause harm.” Id. at 1296. The Court held that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the “steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries.” Id. at 1294.

The rejection on appeal here, having been written before Prometheus was decided, does not address the standard set out in that case. In short, we conclude that the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on an improper interpretation of the claims and does not take into account recent controlling precedent.
 
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Abe et al 10276483 - (D) GARRIS 103 Hogan Lovells US LLP MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Chen et al 11166304 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 Broadcom/BHGL GAMI, TEJAL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Koste et al 11277294 - (D) BISK 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HANSEN, JONATHAN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 11118331 - (D) SAINDON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. HALL, ARTHUR O

3738 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10802314 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Chantz 12014842 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS DANEGA, RENEE A

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Langstrom et al 11386973 - (D) PRATS 103 Amersham Health, Inc. Schlientz, Leah

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Markes 10659291 - (D) GARRIS 103 Dekel Patent Ltd. Beit HaRofim ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hentschel 10527861 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TSAI, SHENG JEN

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Seligmann et al 10891867 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP - Avaya Inc. EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000483 90/009,482 6,815,321 10/377,732 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original LOUIE, WAI SING

2814 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner & Appellant 90009481 5,905,274 08/918,119 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original NGO, NGAN V

2884 Ex Parte Joung et al 10627844 - (D) ELLURU 103 Siemens Corporation MALEVIC, DJURA

2885 Ex Parte Hodulik 11903126 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Michael Hodulik SEMBER, THOMAS M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Hess et al 11060026 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC SAUCIER, SANDRA E

No comments :