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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, April 30, 2015

wright, wands, strahilevitz, amgen2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Van Ingen Schenau et al 12000190 - (D) SMITH 112(1) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Kuo 12420827 - (D) PYONIN 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. DUFFY, JAMES P

2485 Ex Parte Moore et al 13185395 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/102/103 Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A. VAS/Orbital ATK, Inc. LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Pridmore et al 11996230 - (D) BOUDREAU 102/103 41.50 112(2) NIXON PEABODY, LLP ZEWARI, SAYED T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 11684347 - (D) HANLON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) NADAV, ORI

2822 Ex Parte Vaartstra 11493967 - (D) TIMM 112(1)/103 Wells St. John P.S. PATTON, PAUL E

“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The court in Wands set forth a number of factors to consider, i.e., (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Id. Although the Examiner need not review all the Wands factors as they are illustrative, not mandatory, the Examiner must “advance acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement.” In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232 (CCPA 1982); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Here, the only evidence the Examiner relies upon is the breath of the claim as encompassing impossible or at least improbable chemical entities. But a statement that the claims are broad and encompass inoperative embodiments does not establish lack of enablement unless it is clear that the
experimentation needed to arrive at the usable zirconium/hafnium silicates within the formula was more than routine. The Examiner has not established that the experimentation needed was not routine, but undue.

We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack of enablement.

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2107.01 ,   2161.01 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.04 ,   2164.05(a) ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) ,   706.03(b) ,   2161.01 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.06 ,   2164.06(b)

Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 Fed. Cir. 1991) 2138 ,   2138.04 ,   2143.02 ,   2163 2163.02 ,   2164.08 ,   2165.04 ,   2173.05(b) ,   2411.01

2842 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12433270 - (D) KATZ 102 41.50 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP GOOGLE O NEILL, PATRICK

2862 Ex Parte Demos 13325695 - (D) SHAW 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Horn et al 10939524 - (D) LORIN 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP JASMIN, LYNDA C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Winter 11869040 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY PRAGER, JESSE M

3748 Ex Parte Crawley et al 11871701 - (D) BROWN 102 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) TRAN, DIEM T

AFFIRMED–IN–PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 12747826 - (D) JENKS 103 103 J-TEK LAW PLLC GALISTEO GONZALEZ, ANTONIO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Druskin et al 12356562 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 103 WesternGeco L.L.C. SAXENA, AKASH

2172 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11961352 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102/103 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WRIGHT, ELIZABETH G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Houck et al 11343172 - (D) WARREN 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ROLLAND, ALEX A

1726 Ex Parte Noda et al 12808742 - (D) ROESEL 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY GRESO, AARON J

1731 Ex Parte Weibel 12307893 - (D) KRATZ 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA HIJJI, KARAM Y

1767 Ex Parte Shimono et al 11578066 - (D) HOUSEL 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

1772 Ex Parte LAURITZEN et al 12542400 - (D) SMITH 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY DANG, THUAN D

1789 Ex Parte Snider et al 11449265 - (D) GARRIS 103 Polymer Group, Inc. MATZEK, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Pena et al 11318802 - (D) KINDER 102 112(2)/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG COYER, RYAN D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Levi 12361279 - (D) ZADO 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH

2454 Ex Parte HUNG et al 12715559 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED LIN, WEN TAI

2476 Ex Parte WANG et al 11428964 - (D) SHIANG 103 Davidson Sheehan LLP Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. SLOMS, NICHOLAS

2477 Ex Parte Soni et al 11656861 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems YOUNG, STEVE R

2485 Ex Parte Thoreau et al 12223887 - (D) BRANCH 103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. TORRENTE, RICHARD T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Lee et al 10911542 - (D) McMILLIN 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ZUBAJLO, JENNIFER L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Florin et al 12028884 - (D) SMITH 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PURINTON, BROOKE J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Boss et al 10726186 - (D) BROWN 103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP DURAN, ARTHUR D

3626 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12286751 - (D) BARRETT 101 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC LUBIN, VALERIE

3626 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12287686 - (D) BARRETT 101 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC LUBIN, VALERIE

3657 Ex Parte Von Hayn et al 11997774 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. SAHNI, VISHAL R

3671 Ex Parte MAHAL et al 12892945 - (D) KERINS 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP HARTMANN, GARY S

3681 Ex Parte Marhoefer 13506870 - (D) BROWN 102 101 41.50 112(2) L. Joseph Maroefer BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

3685 Ex Parte Perttila et al 10452865 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 12088022 - (D) KERINS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BRADFORD, JONATHAN

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. Requester and Appellant v. NUVASIVE, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7905840 et al 10/967,668 95001890 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.77(b) 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Requester and Cross Appellant v. MONSANTO COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,057,835 et al 11/267,540 95002309 - (D) GUEST 102/103 DENTONS US LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Dickstein Shapiro, LLP DIAMOND, ALAN D original PADEN, CAROLYN A

REHEARING

DENIED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al 07/712,359 95002082 - (D) MARTIN NGHIEM, MICHAEL P Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

DENIED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,167,938 B1 et al 95002083 - (D) MARTIN FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

No comments :