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

Friday, July 3, 2015

armbruster, marzocchi, angstadt, sullivan, vitronics

custom search

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Bastian 12420311 - (D) HORVATH 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. SHIN, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Taylor et al 12830810 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2) ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC k-Space Associates, Inc. KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL

As the predecessor to our reviewing court stated in In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975):

[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.

(quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).
 However, the Examiner did not supply a sufficient reason to doubt the object truth of the statements in the Specification.  Nor did the Exminer proffer any evidence to show that the above spectra preprocessing steps could not be conducted without "undue experimentation."  In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976) (explaining that the Examiner has the "burden of giving reason, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification in not enabling.... Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO's initial burden ....")  The Examiner did not even meaningfully address the Rule 132 Affidavits of record relied upon by Appellants to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform the above spectra preprocessing steps recited in the claims based on the information provided in the Specification.  Compare Ans. 8 with App. Br. 6-7; In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaning that failure to meaningfully address submitted evidence is error). Rather than focusing on the sufficiency of any underlying evidence and/or any passages of the Specification relied upon by the affiants for their averments, the Examiner inappropriately ignored the contents of the Rule 132 Affidavits because the affiants were deemed experts, rather that one of ordinary skill in the art.  Ans. 8; see, e.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that an expert testimony can be relied on to show the state of the art, e.g., the knowledge of one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.)

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) 2161 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971)  2107.01 ,   2107.02 ,   2124 ,   2163 ,   2163.04 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.04 ,   2164.08

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01 2164.06 2164.08(b)

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Hanes 11669232 - (D) KAISER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MESA, JOSE M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Rasmusson et al 12127462 - (D) FINK 112(2) 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC CRADDOCK, ROBERT J

No comments :