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

Monday, October 15, 2012

angstadt, atlas powder2, falkner, vaeck, masham

custom search

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Machhammer et al 10815873 - (D) PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. OH, TAYLOR V

Accordingly, it is “well settled that patent applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by their claims, even in an unpredictable art.” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

For example, in Falkner v. Inglis, the court affirmed the conclusion of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that claims to a modified pox virus vaccine were enabled, despite the fact that the specification focused on viruses other than pox virus, provided no examples directed to pox virus, and discussed pox virus only in general terms relating to the inventive disclosure. Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08

Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 79 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2163

However, it is well settled that a claim does not lack enablement merely because it encompasses inoperative embodiments. See Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976).

Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2111.03, 2164.01, 2164.08(b)

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)

1646 Ex Parte Chen et al 10723955 - (D) McCOLLUM 101/112(1) Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP LI, RUIXIANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Patton et al 10845438 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Gerald W. Maliszewski BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Godwin et al 11302759 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 DOCKET CLERK JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Belanger et al 11789584 - (D) MacDONALD 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ABELSON, RONALD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Matocha 11295915 - (D) McKEOWN 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LUKE, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Foerster et al 10734671 - (D) JENKS 102 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

A “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).

Masham, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) 2114

No comments :