SEARCH

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

Friday, September 19, 2014

perricone, minton, hoffer, griffin

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ahlem et al 11551195 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HARBOR THERAPEUTICS, INC. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Although not clearly stated, the Examiner may alternatively be relying upon a theory of inherency. However, the treatment of HIV does not inherently result in the treatment of a mycobacterium infection.In Perricone, the Federal Circuit distinguished between the topical application of a lotion to skin generally to prevent sunburn, and the topical application of a lotion to treat sunburned skin, finding that the “issue is not . . . whether [the prior art] lotion if applied to skin sunburn would inherently treat that damage, but whether Pereira discloses the application of its composition to skin sunburn. It does not.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Reinschke et al 10591089 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ANDREWS, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte KUBLER et al 11764815 - (D) LORIN 103 King & Spalding LLP FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3662 Ex Parte Munch 11580771 - (D) MURPHY 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 12251173 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Ritt et al 10843492 - (D) EVANS 102(e) 101 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MCNALLY, MICHAEL S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Diaz et al 12391821 - (D) TIMM 103 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Caveney et al 11179762 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Perman & Green, LLP LOWE, MICHAEL S

“A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “However, when the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in giving limiting effect to the “wherein” clauses in an interference because the wherein clauses “relate back to and clarify what is required by the count.” The court was not persuaded by the arguments that the wherein clauses in that case “merely state the inherent result of performing the manipulative steps.” Id. at 1034. 

Minton, Hoffer, and Griffin establish that each claim reciting a “wherein” or “whereby” clause must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the clause is entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. 

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2106 2111.04 2133.03(c)

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 2111.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11346750 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC DORNA, CARRIE R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Hind et al 12204597 - (D) TROCK 112(2) 102(e) CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Khalid et al 11409586 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Jeong et al 11714060 - (D) COURTENAY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MCKIE, GINA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Karpov et al 12082181 - (D) WILSON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 NALCO COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. VOSTEEN CONSULTING GmbH Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Vosteen et al 90/011,604 6,878,358 B 10/430,088 95001587 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Third Party Requester: Reed Smith, LLP XU, LING X original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 7232656 et al 10/610,305 95000528 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 102/103 COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP Third Party Requester: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original WHISENANT, ETHAN C

No comments :