SEARCH

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

general foods, vogel, eli lilly, aldrich

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chardon et al 11742019 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Zeng 11827741 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAYER, PAUL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Teratani et al 11408240 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1755 Ex Parte Fulton et al 12292346 - (D) TIMM double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The key question in any obviousness double patenting analyis is: "Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?"  General Foods Corp. v. Studiengessellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed, Cir, 1992) (discussing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  After determinig the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct.  In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

It is critical during the analysis that no part of the patent be used as "prior art" against the claims under review.  This includes the claims themselves. See In re Aldrich, 398 F.2d 855, 859 (CCPA 1968) ("double patenting rejection[s] cannot be based on section 103,... or on the disclosures of the patents whose claims are relied on to demonstrate double patenting or on the 'disclosures' of their claims... [P]atent claims are looked to only to see what has been patented, the subject matter which has been protected, not for something one may find to be disclosed by reading them") (emphasis added).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 804.01 804.02 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 2144.08 2165.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Miller 11958337 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Yin et al 12117927 - (D) FINK 102/103 KIRTON MCCONKIE RICHER, AARON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Kwong et al 11488799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHEN, XIAOLIANG

No comments :