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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, June 18, 2015

eli lilly, ariad, hearing, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2458 Ex Parte Davis et al 12524500 - (D) THOMAS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP RECEK, JASON D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Bouhamame et al 12678507 - (D) DELMENDO 102 NXP B.V. LE, DINH THANH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Whynot 12341845 - (D) SHAW 103 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. OWYANG, MICHELLE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lukose et al 12263176 - (D) MOHANTY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Lingappa et al 10911421 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) 112(1)/double patenting QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

“The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ...

This is particularly relevant when, as here, Appellants’ Specification discloses that one has to experiment to determine if a conformer for any particular protein could, in fact, be produced, let alone be distinguishably identified by a ligand (see FF 13). Notwithstanding Appellants’ contentions to the contrary:

[A] sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus[, as Appellants have done on this record,] is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species” (id.). ...

“The written description requirement [serves to] . . . ensure[] that when a patent claims a genus by its
function or result, the specification recites sufficient materials to accomplish that function.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. In this regard, the written description requirement requires “more than a ‘wish’ or ‘plan’ for obtaining” the claimed invention. Id. at 1350.

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.032161.0121632163.022163.03

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161.01

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Granit et al 12279952 - (D) TROCK 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP HASSAN, AURANGZEB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Hird 12272205 - (D) HOMERE 103 Vierra Magen / CA Inc ZAIDI, SYED A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Rak et al 11738981 - (D) HAAPALA 103 BlackBerry Limited (Fitch Even) CRAWLEY, KEITH L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte PUPPI et al 12971606 - (D) GUIJT 103 112(2) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Pirelli & C. S.p.A. VENNE, DANIEL V

As claimed, the suffix “like” acts as a term of degree because it is intended to encompass structures that may differ to some degree from threads. Our reviewing court has held that “[n]ot all terms of degree are indefinite,” but that “‘the specification must provide[] some standard for measuring that degree.’” Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

We find the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants fail to provide the requisite standard for measuring whether a structure is “thread-like.”

3671 Ex Parte Oberg 13151792 - (D) GEIER 103 NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A. TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Drack et al 12893728 - (D) MAYBERRY 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PRAGER, JESSE M

3788 Ex Parte Sloan 12227610 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SKINNER AND ASSOCIATES NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Requester, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent v. MICROSOFT CORP. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant Ex Parte 6339780 et al 08/851,877 95002267 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HAYNES & BOONE LLP FOR PATENT OWNER:  KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP original Lee & Hayes, PLLC KISS, ERIC B original JUNG, DAVID YIUK

No comments :