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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, October 7, 2013

eli lilly2, vas-cath

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte de Leon et al 11563377 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. RIEGLER, PATRICK F

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Moroney et al 10770250 - (D) FREDMAN 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP MILIA, MARK R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Green 11478389 - (D) HOELTER 103 KIM, KYUNG J KIM, KYUNG J

3684 Ex Parte Byers 12191050 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk CASEY, ALEXIS M

3686 Ex Parte Brown 11509337 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1) Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. PAULS, JOHN A

Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566(Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, an applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64.

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) , 2111.03, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03
HARMON 5: 149, 158, 163, 173, 183; 6: 168; 8: 228; 10: 265; 12: 189, 197; 19: 400; 21: 153
DONNER 1: 418; 9: 294, 296, 444, 511-14, 530-32; 10: 985

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1504.20, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181
HARMON 3: 73; 5: 14, 141, 153, 156, 161, 165; 11: 219; 20: 113, 178, 302
DONNER 9: 2, 368, 369, 388-90, 407, 496, 604, 610; 10: 48; 12: 109; 13: 126

No comments :