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

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

swartz, enzo2, fisher, fouche, newman

custom search

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Trimberger 12501445 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 41.50 112(1)/101 Stephen Trimberger BERGIN, JAMES S

In order for the specification to be enabling, it “must adequately disclose the claimed invention so as to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation.” In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) citing, Enzo-Biochem, Inc. v Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The purpose of the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. §101 is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of “real world” value. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 for lack of utility is tantamount to a rejection under the how-to-use provision of the enablement clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1243 (CCPA 1971) (“[I]f such compositions are in fact useless, appellant’s specification cannot have taught how to use them.”). As such, the lack of utility because of inoperativeness (a question of fact), and the absence of enablement (a question of law) are thus closely related grounds of unpatentability. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 863; see also Newman v Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

The claimed invention must have “a specific and substantial utility to satisfy § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371. The substantial utility requirement means

that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that the claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit the public. Id.

Swartz, In re, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2107.01 2164.07

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2164.06(b)

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2103 2107.01 2164.07

Fouche, In re, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) 608.01(p) 716.02(b) 2107.01 2164.07

Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 11 USPQ2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2107.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Singer et al 12752570 - (D) KENNEDY 102/103 PPG Industries, Inc. JONES JR., ROBERT STOCKTON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Prokupets et al 10704000 - (D) McNEILL 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Hinton et al 11752988 - (D) FRAHM 103 DAVID H. JUDSON IBM CORP. (DHJ) TORRES, MARCOS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Telep et al 12376991 - (D) LANEY 102/103 WARN, HOFFMANN, P.C. VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR

No comments :