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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

bayer, wellman, engel

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Merino et al 12956237 - (D) PAK 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP SORKIN, DAVID L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kline et al 11406291 - (D) EVANS 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP VO, TRUONG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Barish 12292211 - (D) CAPP 103 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Romeo et al 10138851 - (D) WARREN 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP SMITH, CHAIM A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte GSCHWIND 11762156 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(1) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. CALDWELL, ANDREW T

If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010.

Whether the best mode requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Bayer AG v. Schein Pharms., Inc., 301 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Two specific factual questions must be answered to determine whether there has been a violation of the best mode requirement: The first is whether, at the time of filing the patent application, the inventor had a best mode of practicing the claimed invention—a subjective question. The second is whether, assuming the inventor had a preference for one mode over all others, the inventor objectively concealed his preferred mode from the public. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

See also Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“invalidity for failure to set forth the best mode requires that (1) the inventors knew of a better mode of carrying out the claimed invention than they disclosed in the specification, and (2) the inventors concealed that better mode.”) .

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Lee et al 12725508 - (D) PAK 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC OSENBAUGH-STEWART, ELIZA W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 12386573 - (D) MURPHY 103 KLAUS J. BACH BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Justin 12784824 - (D) ASTORINO 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. CHOI, STEPHEN

No comments :