SEARCH

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

gordon, ariad, abbvie, rochester

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte LU et al 12103730 - (D) ZADO 102/103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hinton 11010228 - (D) KOHUT 102 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON AVERY, JEREMIAH L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Houston et al 13116973 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHENG, DIANA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Cloft 11823496 - (D) KINDER 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. KIM, CRAIG SANG

Examining the entirety of each of the prior art references to determine whether it would have been obvious to combine Olsen’s electrically driven oil system into Champion, we conclude it would not because doing so would render Champion unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2143.01 2144.08

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Moskowitz 11895388 - (D) DEJMEK 103 103 NEIFELD IP LAW, PC OKEKE, IZUNNA

2491 Ex Parte Viamonte Sole 12144201 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 102/103 RATNERPRESTIA DESROSIERS, EVANS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Chen et al 12170319 - (D) LENTIVECH 102 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED BILODEAU, DAVID

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Freeman 13168621 - (D) PLENZLER 103 102 SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH ANDREWS, DAVID L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Subkowski et al 11922650 - (D) PER CURIUM 112(1)/112(2)/102 112(1) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) HA, JULIE

A “generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, “the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 2181

AbbVie Duetschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014)  2163 ,   2163.01 ,   2163.05

The Federal Circuit confronted facts similar to those here in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In that case, the patent claimed a method of selectively inhibiting the enzyme PGHS-2 (also known as COX-2) by “administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product in a human.” Id. at 918. The patent “described in detail how to make cells that express either COX-1 or COX-2, but not both …, as well as ‘assays for screening compounds, including peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product.[’]” Id. at 927.

The court held that the disclosure of screening assays and general classes of compounds was not adequate to describe compounds having the desired activity: without disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, or small organic molecules have the desired characteristic, the claims failed to meet the description requirement of § 112. See id. (“As pointed out by the district court, the ‘850 patent does not disclose just ‘which “peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules” have the desired characteristic of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2.’ … Without such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2163

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte CHAUDHRY 12430761 - (D) McKEOWN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PARK, GRACE A

2167 Ex Parte Wong et al 10888772 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Baker Botts LLP KHAKHAR, NIRAV K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Baylon 11562517 - (D) DANG 103 ARRIS Group, Inc. TORRENTE, RICHARD T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Haynes et al 12140570 - (D) SHAW 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG PAPPAS, PETER

No comments :