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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, October 3, 2013

merck2, sakraida

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Reunamaki et al 11169765 - (D) Per Curiam 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP IQBAL, KHAWAR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex parte DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90011683 6,001,067 08/811,473 BARRETT 112(1)/103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC. BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original CARTER, RYAN CHRISTOPHER

"[W]hen an inventor tries to distinguish his claims from the prior art by introducing evidence of unexpected 'synergistic' properties, the evidence should at least demonstrate 'an effect greater than the sum of the several effects taken separately.'" Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 808-09 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). The declaration fails to adequately set forth the results for the separate features that one of ordinary skill would have expected and therefore fails to establish a baseline against which to compare the sum of the results. See Shults Supp. Decl., para. 24. Thus, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence that any improved results due to the "synergistic effects" would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the closest prior art.

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
HARMON 3: 56, 83; 4: 85, 177, 309, 312, 381; 6: 140; 7: 152, 170; 20: 536
DONNER 7: 706; 8: 351

Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1979) 716.01(a), 2141
HARMON 4: 16, 102

No comments :