SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label angstadt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label angstadt. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

alza, angstadt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Jolly et al 13376827 - (D) MAJORS 103 Gavrilovich, Dodd & Lindsey LLP ZOU, NIANXIANG

1655 Ex Parte McAllister et al 14587831 - (D) MAJORS 102/103 Gavrilovich, Dodd & Lindsey LLP MELLER, MICHAEL V

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Kondo et al 14382081 - (D) OWENS 103 CLARK & BRODY JOHNSON, JONATHAN J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Ostrover 12950213 - (D) FRAHM 103 GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC TORGRIMSON, TYLER J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3696 Ex Parte Fein et al 11618014 - (D) KUMAR 101/103 Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/SFC DEGA, MURALI K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Capriotti et al 13328192 - (D) JESCHKE 103 HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP STINSON, CHELSEA E.

3732 Ex Parte Terrell 14095267 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Atlanta Baker Donelson QUINN, RICHALE LEE

3761 Ex Parte Wang 13792462 - (D) ASTORINO 103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC WARD, THOMAS JOHN

3763 Ex Parte TSENG 13716207 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 YI-MING TSENG OSWALD, KIRSTIN U

3772 Ex Parte Yu et al 12766602 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 McBee Moore Woodward & Vanik IP, LLC SAUNDERS, MATTHEW P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Hudson et al 13334154 - (D) FREDMAN 103 112(4) Evonik Corporation BROWE, DAVID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2812 Ex Parte Varadarajan et al 14616435 - (D) RANGE 103 112(1) Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson - LAMR/NOVL PATERSON, BRIGITTE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Omori et al 11923159 - (D) BROWN 103 112(4) KS - Whitmyer IP Group LLC HOLLM, JONATHAN A

3783 Ex Parte SELVARAJAN et al 14470492 - (D) HILL 103 102/103 41.50 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

3791 Ex Parte FRANK et al 13005810 - (D) PESLAK 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 112(2) 41.50 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC ALTER, MITCHELLE

The enablement provision in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that the full scope of a claim be enabled. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 94 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2161.01

...

Even though calculating NSRI using other known inverted sigmoid functions may require some experimentation on the part of ordinarily skilled artisans, a disclosure may nonetheless be enabling despite the need for experimentation. The test is whether such experimentation is undue. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976).

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Wood et al 13124064 - (D) CHANG 103 LONDA, BRUCE S. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA GOTFREDSON, GAREN

1651 Ex Parte Agha-Mohammadi 13197393 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 TechLaw LLP CLARKE, TRENT R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte HAMANAKA 14771595 - (D) HOUSEL 102 FLYNN THIEL, P.C. SHUKLA, KRUPA

1793 Ex Parte ABRIL et al 14137591 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MOORE, WALTER A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Sieja et al 14091581 - (D) STRAUSS 103 101 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP HARMON, COURTNEY N

2196 Ex Parte Baldo et al 14175644 - (D) SHIANG 112(1) 101 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C. AGUILERA, TODD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Asipov 14935400 - (D) CUTITTA 103 103/OTDP MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHAW, BRIAN F

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 14666446 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 Ford Global Technologies, LLC/ King & Schickli, PLLC CLEMMONS, STEVE M

3623 Ex Parte Grigsby et al 12131084 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/112(2) 101 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. STERRETT, JONATHAN G

3626 Ex Parte Darin et al 11871615 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP - OC (BD) PAULS, JOHN A

3633 Ex Parte Hohmann, 14313645 - (D) SHAH 103 STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3633 Ex Parte Waters et al 15064281 - (D) CAPP 103 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

3693 Ex Parte Kemper et al 12129217 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA MERCHANT, SHAHID R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Zemlok et al 13788293 - (D) O'HANLON 103 Covidien LP HIBBERT, MARY C

Friday, July 3, 2015

armbruster, marzocchi, angstadt, sullivan, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
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

AFFIRMED
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

Friday, March 13, 2015

angstadt, vaeck, armbruster, marzocchi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Stanton 11601524 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. CHANDRA, SATISH

1756 Ex Parte Detournay et al 12305444 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Solvay America, Inc. PHASGE, ARUN S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2879 Ex Parte Tu et al 12440039 - (D) OWENS 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS STERN, JACOB R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Becken et al 11992369 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification is not enabling…Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When “a [S]pecification disclosure…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[,]” such [S]pecification disclosure “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.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975) (quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).

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

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01 ,   2144.08 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(c) ,   2164.03 ,  2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

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

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12372681 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte Hildebrandt et al 11911185 - (D) ZADO 103 102/103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP MANDEVILLE, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Franer et al 10943222 - (D) WIEKER 103 102/103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC MCEVOY, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Guilford et al 10289934 - (D) JENKS 103 Daneker, McIntire, Schumm, Prince, Manning & Widmann, P.C. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mager et al 11732574 - (D) SMITH 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

1766 Ex Parte Rische et al 11732575 - (D) SMITH 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Lessing et al 12339983 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 TERADATA CORPORATION PEACH, POLINA G

2166 Ex Parte Malik 12043521 - (D) SHIANG 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC YEN, SYLING

2172 Ex Parte LEE 11835673 - (D) HARLOW 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HUR, ECE

2199 Ex Parte Besbris et al 11281887 - (D) SHIANG 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan MITCHELL, JASON D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Brown 11687545 - (D) BEAMER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) DUONG, DUC T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte McCloud et al 12966953 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Moon et al 12497261 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP TRAN, NGUYEN

2864 Ex Parte Tran et al 12244096 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HWANG, TIMOTHY

Monday, March 25, 2013

hogan, angstadt, deckler

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11205638 - (D) SMITH 102/103 ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Brusca 10136961 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 VERIZON PAPPAS, PETER

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Cardon et al 12120451 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP ANDREWS, MICHAEL

2859 Ex Parte Mack 11685913 - (D) STEPHENS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL OMAR, AHMED H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Perini 12366149 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TAWFIK, SAMEH

3778 Ex Parte Gumaste et al 11064201 - (D) GRIMES 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

3779 Ex Parte Menn 11746284 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. NIA, ALIREZA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Schultz et al 11265793 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP PANDYA, SUNIT

3766 Ex Parte Costa Ribalta et al 11575505 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/102 112(2) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Detrick et al 12008588 - (D) SMITH 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION BARR, MICHAEL E

1712 Ex Parte Frechem et al 11359833 - (D) HASTINGS 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY VETERE, ROBERT A

1715 Ex Parte Crouse et al 11657833 - (D) OBERMANN 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1732 Ex Parte Mao et al 11257221 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 Phillips 66 Company SLIFKA, COLIN W

1761 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11339976 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FEELY, MICHAEL J

1762 Ex Parte Han-Adebekun et al 12029909 - (D) McKELVEY 112(1) 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

The Examiner’s finding, even if correct, does not necessarily support a legal conclusion of lack of enablement. In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605-607 (CCPA 1977) (see: Part II. Employment of a Later State of the Art in Testing for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph). In our view, the Examiner’s “yet undiscovered” rationale is not consistent with Hogan and therefore does not support 1 a § 112 rejection based on a lack of enablement commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims.

Cf. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976) (fact that claim may include inoperative embodiments does not per se render claim unpatentable under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112).

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) 2124, 2164.05(a)

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

1774 Ex Parte Ketchum 11807315 - (D) OBERMANN 103 LyondellBasell Industries SORKIN, DAVID L

1791 Ex Parte Trudsoe 11767617 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103/obviousness-type double patenting CP Kelco US, INC c/o Pete Pappas, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Rawat et al 11278000 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BURKE, JEFF A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Zur et al 11341113 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 THOMAS
HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J

2452 Ex Parte Blaukopf et al 10303805 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP CHANG, JULIAN

2456 Ex Parte Dolbec et al 10522201 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Xtera Communications, Inc. CHANG, TOM Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Wakumoto et al 11084310 - (D) EVANS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

2645 Ex Parte Atkins et al 10878297 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 IBM CORPORATION - RSW (JVL) MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2645 Ex Parte Haumont 10500874 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Coglitore et al 10678006 - (D) POTHIER 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP / SGIC LEA EDMONDS, LISA S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Caveney et al 12035490 - (D) HILL 102 PANDUIT CORP. HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

3653 Ex Parte Zeller 11963394 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Pynson et al 11025406 - (D) O’HEARN 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BLATT, ERIC D

3766 Ex Parte Herbert et al 11414515 - (D) SAINDON 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. KIMBALL, JEREMIAH T

3769 Ex Parte Heinonen et al 10825575 - (D) WALSH 102/103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. YAO, SAMCHUAN CUA

3772 Ex Parte Bonadio et al 10600812 - (D) BONILLA Concurring ADAMS 112(1) 102 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC BIANCO, PATRICIA  

Appellants argue that “In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992), does not support the withholding of the priority date of the '649 application from Appellant” (id. at 25, 32-33).   Regarding Appellants‟ position that Leahy does not qualify as prior art against the pending claims, Deckler is relevant. As stated by the Federal Circuit in this case:

The Board‟s decision that the interference judgment bars Deckler from obtaining a patent for claims that are patentably indistinguishable from the claim on which Deckler lost the interference constituted a permissible application of settled principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Under those principles, a judgment in an action precludes relitigation of claims or issues that were or could have been raised in that proceeding. Similarly, this court has applied interference estoppel to bar the assertion of claims for inventions that are patentably indistinct from those in an interference that the applicant had lost.

In re Deckler, 977 F.2d at 1452 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).  

Deckler, In re, 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 715, 2308.03

Monday, October 15, 2012

angstadt, atlas powder2, falkner, vaeck, masham

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Machhammer et al 10815873 - (D) PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. OH, TAYLOR V

Accordingly, it is “well settled that patent applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by their claims, even in an unpredictable art.” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

For example, in Falkner v. Inglis, the court affirmed the conclusion of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that claims to a modified pox virus vaccine were enabled, despite the fact that the specification focused on viruses other than pox virus, provided no examples directed to pox virus, and discussed pox virus only in general terms relating to the inventive disclosure. Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08

Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 79 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2163

However, it is well settled that a claim does not lack enablement merely because it encompasses inoperative embodiments. See Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976).

Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2111.03, 2164.01, 2164.08(b)

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

1646 Ex Parte Chen et al 10723955 - (D) McCOLLUM 101/112(1) Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP LI, RUIXIANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Patton et al 10845438 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Gerald W. Maliszewski BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Godwin et al 11302759 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 DOCKET CLERK JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Belanger et al 11789584 - (D) MacDONALD 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ABELSON, RONALD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Matocha 11295915 - (D) McKEOWN 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LUKE, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Foerster et al 10734671 - (D) JENKS 102 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

A “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).

Masham, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) 2114

Thursday, February 9, 2012

levy, angstadt, vaeck, ariad

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Hwang et al 11/580,713 BARRY 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHILLIPS, III, ALBERT M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte McCrory et al 11/033,024 GREENHUT 102(b) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP EXAMINER PALO, FRANCIS T

What is lacking from the Examiner’s determinations of inherency is evidence or reasoning to show that the allegedly inherent feature or property must necessarily result from Mimura’s process or structure, respectively. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).


Levy, Ex parte, 17 USPQ2d 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112


3662 Ex Parte Martin et al 10/529,192 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) WesternGeco L.L.C. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721
Ex Parte Zhuang et al 11/390,696 OWENS 102(b) 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Jerding et al
10/957,849 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Mottier et al 10/815,724
STEPHENS 103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LAM, KENNETH T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Emery et al 10/749,602 PRATS 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Stux et al 11/307,367 PAK 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE

It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the [S]pecification is not enabling . . . Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This enablement requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the written description requirement of that provision. See, e.g., Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (“Since its inception, this court has consistently held that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement.”)

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

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08

1727 Ex Parte MATSUI et al 11/979,403 HASTINGS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1781 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11/370,137 KATZ 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Rigoutsos 10/305,582 DIXON 101/102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LY, CHEYNE D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Ruiz et al 10/408,037 SIU 103(a) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Felbach 10/838,234 RUGGIERO 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEFF, MICHAEL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Theel 10/668,049 KIM 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

3711 Ex Parte Turnpaugh et al 11/619,744 PER CURIAM 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER

3737 Ex Parte Ritter et al 09/842,417 HORNER 102(b) Bryan K. Wheelock Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER CASLER, BRIAN L