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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, November 19, 2012

wesslau, burroughs, coleman, hybritech, sewall, skoner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Qiu et al 10891407 - (D) WALSH 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION ALAWADI, SARAH

“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965).

1621 Ex Parte JOHNSEN et al 12621551 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/103/obviousnesstype double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousnesstype double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

1621 Ex Parte HOMESTAD 12621571 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/103/obviousnesstype double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousnesstype double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

1621 Ex Parte JOHNSEN et al 12621556 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousness-type double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Grube et al 11755452 - (D) BEST 103 GAF WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ. JOHNSON, JENNA LEIGH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Zine 12368494 - (D) WALSH 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC PARSLEY, DAVID J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Habash et al 11815440 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/103 102/103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TOWNSLEY, SARA ELIZABETH

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2186 NVIDIA CORPORATION Respondent v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001189 7287119 11/681,384 SIU 103 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOI, WOO H original BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE

3504 NVIDIA CORPORATION Respondent v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001205 7360050 SIU 103 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOI, WOO H original SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Leonard 11757764 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BADIO, BARBARA P

See In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention. Just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness.”)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11188417 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG BUNNER, BRIDGET E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Meiere 11063638 - (D) GAUDETTE 103/obviousness-type double patenting PRAXAIR, INC. HORNING, JOEL G

1777 Ex Parte Arpaia et al 10556803 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. XU, XIAOYUN

1792 Ex Parte Barnett et al 11669580 - (D) KRATZ 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP WILLIAMS, LELA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Battaglia et al 10994271 - (D) MCKONE 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LEWIS-TAYLOR, DAYTON A.

2181 Ex Parte Sakiyama et al 10775080 - (D) THOMAS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Olchanski et al 09996475 - (D) THOMAS 103 WILMERHALE/DC TANG, KAREN C

For starters, we focus on the issue of conception. As comprehensively set forth by the Federal Circuit in Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994):

Conception is the touchstone of inventorship, the completion of the mental part of invention. Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1994). It is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Sewall, 21 F.3d at 415, 30 USPQ2d at 1359; see also Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (conception must include every feature of claimed invention). Because it is a mental act, courts require corroborating evidence of a contemporaneous disclosure that would enable one skilled in the art to make the invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.

Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 32 USPQ2d 1915 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2138.04, 2163

Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 716.03(b), 2138.04, 2145, 2163, 2164.01, 2164.05(a), 2173.05(a), 2182, 2184

Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2138.04

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kirke 11422638 - (D) CURCURI 103 GARLICK & MARKISON OBAYANJU, OMONIYI

2682 Ex Parte McEwan 10419274 - (D) CALDWELL 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP NGUYEN, NAM V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Smith et al 10899656 - (D) TURNER 103 WILLIAM L. PARADICE, III ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Clough 11961936 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2)/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. FIDEI, DAVID  

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2783 Ex parte MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Patent Owner & Appellant 90010889 5958006 08/574,541 BLANKENSHIP 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RYMAN, DANIEL J original COLEMAN, ERIC

No comments :