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

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

astrazeneca, ngai, king

custom search

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Yates et al 11900931 - (D) DANG 103 EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC HERSHLEY, MARK E

2161 Ex Parte Szabo 11942556 - (D) FRAHM 102 Trellis IP Law Group/ Sony Corp. LE, HUNG D

2181 Ex Parte Nogueras et al 12135999 - (D) DIXON 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Hulkkonen et al 12743343 - (D) JIVANI 102/103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Rother et al 12151965 - (D) HILL 103 MARK P. STONE HAGEMAN, MARK C

3657 Ex Parte Jolley et al 12258212 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Singhal et al 11526514 - (D) WIEKER 112(2)/103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A PATEL, NATASHA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Zundel et al 12186034 - (D) HANLON 103 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA NICELY, JOSEPH C

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Connor et al 11407446 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 McCarter & English / KCI NGUYEN, QUANG

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Asandei 12052947 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP KAUCHER, MARK S

1767 Ex Parte Hayashi et al 12280300 - (D) SMITH 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC HEINCER, LIAM J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11292207 - (D) KRIVAK 112(2)/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC FAHERTY, COREY S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Shapiro 11132923 - (D) FRAHM 103 Wolfe-SBMC SCHWARTZ, DARREN B

2442 Ex Parte Faraj 11837024 - (D) SHIANG 101 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP IBM (ROC-BKLS) MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2466 Ex Parte Khuc 11434841 - (D) TROCK 103 SPRINT OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK

2476 Ex Parte Wakumoto 11680089 - (D) BUI 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY GHAFOERKHAN, FAIYAZKHAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Hurtta et al 12213551 - (D) BAER 103 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy HO, HUY C

2657 Ex Parte Bollenbacher et al 12130934 - (D) DIXON 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG PULLIAS, JESSE SCOTT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Schultz 12757366 - (D) GOODSON 103 41.50 103 FAY SHARPE LLP LEWIS, JUSTIN V

In essence, Appellant argues that the illustrations functionally interrelate with the mat because they represent instructions for using the mat to carry out inspection and cleaning. Yet the Federal Circuit’s precedents have “foreclosed the argument that simply adding new instructions to a known product creates the functional relationship necessary to distinguish the product from the prior art.” AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In Ngai, the court found that, in a kit claim, recited instructions for using the kit were not entitled to patentable weight because “the printed matter in no way depends on the kit, and the kit does not depend on the printed matter. All that the printed matter does is teach a new use for an existing product.” Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339. Likewise, here, the illustrations on the mat do not depend on the mat, and the mat does not depend on the illustrations. The illustrations simply convey information to a user about cleaning and inspection operations that can be carried out on the mat.

“The rationale behind [the printed matter] line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharm., 616 F.3d at 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339 (“If we were to adopt Ngai’s position, anyone could continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product.”). In this case, permitting Appellant to distinguish the prior art based on the contents of the illustrations appearing on the mat would allow continued patenting of a known product by the mere inclusion of novel non-functional descriptive material. 

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

3762 Ex Parte Kelly et al 12423407 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 GARLICK & MARKISON LEVICKY, WILLIAM J


3788 Ex Parte Erickson et al 13013331 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC STASHICK, ANTHONY D


Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Ferren et al 10909132 - (D) EVANS 102 IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO RAO, SHEELA S


Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 VICOR CORPORATION Requester v. SYNQOR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,564,702 et al 11/901,263 95001853 - (D) MOORE 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. Third Party Requester: Turner Boyd, LLP HEYMAN, JOHN S original NGUYEN, MATTHEW VAN


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 HASBRO, INC., Requester, v. GANZ, Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,677,948 B2 et al 11/027,880 95001341 - (D) SIU 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP for THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PERKINS COIE L.L.P. KISS, ERIC B original AHMED, MASUD

No comments :