engel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Lodyga et al 10652283 - (D) ADAMS 103 DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC.-Quartz FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1633 Ex Parte Stewart 11696039 - (D) NEW 112(1) Ramey & Schwaller, LLP KELLY, ROBERT M

"The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention." Engel Indus., Inc. v. Locliformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533, (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Block 12244515 - (D) BEAMER 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. NGUYEN, THU N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Zito 12498127 - (D) DROESCH 103 Baker Botts LLP BOUTAH, ALINA A

2456 Ex Parte Martin 12481322 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Lukose et al 12533864 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise POLLOCK, GREGORY A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Hermansson et al 13109757 - (D) HEANEY 103 Whitmyer IP Group LLC LEWIS, BEN

1759 Ex Parte Finley et al 11751328 - (D) DERRICK 103 PPG Industries, Inc. MAYEKAR, KISHOR

1765 Ex Parte Carlberg et al 13056194 - (D) DENNETT 103 Blue Cube IP LLC POLSINELLI PC SELLERS, ROBERT E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte Peacock 13115236 - (D) ENGLE 103 HP Inc, ALSIP, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Zedlitz et al 12565650 - (D) PARVIS 112(1)/103 SAP SE NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

2465 Ex Parte HASS et al 13084516 - (D) POTHIER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. PEZZLO, JOHN

2465 Ex Parte Sinha et al 13333474 - (D) SMITH 102/103 HONEYWELL/SLW DIVITO, WALTER J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Wright et al 12816955 - (D) BUI 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED MCCULLEY, RYAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Todd 12587719 - (D) HORNER 102/103 DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. SHOEMAKER AND MATT ARE, LTD SHIRSAT, VIVEK K

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex parte INFINITY COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7489423 et al 11/084,297 90013207 - (D) JEFFERY 102 MARVIN J. NACHMAN Third Party Requester ROPES & GRAY LLP WASSUM, LUKE S original LEE, CHEUKFAN

bayer3, wellman, engel

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Merino et al 12956237 - (D) PAK 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP SORKIN, DAVID L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kline et al 11406291 - (D) EVANS 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP VO, TRUONG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Barish 12292211 - (D) CAPP 103 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Romeo et al 10138851 - (D) WARREN 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP SMITH, CHAIM A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte GSCHWIND 11762156 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(1) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. CALDWELL, ANDREW T

If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010.

Whether the best mode requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Bayer AG v. Schein Pharms., Inc., 301 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Two specific factual questions must be answered to determine whether there has been a violation of the best mode requirement: The first is whether, at the time of filing the patent application, the inventor had a best mode of practicing the claimed invention—a subjective question. The second is whether, assuming the inventor had a preference for one mode over all others, the inventor objectively concealed his preferred mode from the public. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

See also Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“invalidity for failure to set forth the best mode requires that (1) the inventors knew of a better mode of carrying out the claimed invention than they disclosed in the specification, and (2) the inventors concealed that better mode.”) .

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Lee et al 12725508 - (D) PAK 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC OSENBAUGH-STEWART, ELIZA W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 12386573 - (D) MURPHY 103 KLAUS J. BACH BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Justin 12784824 - (D) ASTORINO 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. CHOI, STEPHEN

johns hopkins, engel

custom search

8/2/2012
REVERSED  
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Leitner et al  10348583 - (D)  McCOLLUM 103 RATNERPRESTIA MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI

AFFIRMED  
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte LeBlanc et al  11166823 - (D)  HORNER 103 Tabarrok & Zahrt (SEAGATE-10/11) KRAUSE, JUSTIN MITCHELL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Van Heugten et al  11288745 - (D)  GRIMES 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC SIMPSON, SARAH A

3736 Ex Parte Geiger  10976164 - (D)  WALSH 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. NGUYEN, HUONG Q

3736 Ex Parte Bodecker et al  10579265 - (D)  DEMETRA J. MILLS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON  STOUT, MICHAEL C

8/3/2012
REVERSED  
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte La Croix  12470176 - (D)  GRIMES 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Bettuchi et al  11238497 - (D)  FREDMAN 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SEVERSON, RYAN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART  
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Bangera et al  11729958 - (D)  GREEN 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE BRUSCA, JOHN S

“‘[T]he enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention.’” Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

AFFIRMED  
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Dobbelaar  10123790 - (D)  DESHPANDE 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ENGLAND, SARA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Cuellar et al  11251044 - (D)  FREDMAN 103 MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLC MERENE, JAN CHRISTOP L

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3900 Ex parte ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Appellant 90010867 5670633 07/835,932 LEBOVITZ  103 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI

johns hopkins, engel, dystar, kollman,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Christakos et al 11/177,790 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT 

Ex Parte Liu 10/870,766 GREEN 103(a) DR. GEORGE DACAI LIU EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

Ex Parte Marcel et al 10/315,445 PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUNNER, BRIDGET E 

"The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention." Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Written Description Training Materials (http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written.pdf)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Iyengar 10/629,284 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Moderegger et al 09/944,379 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/679,725 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Lochner et al 09/994,520 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, DUC Q 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Apps 11/099,423 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Clark et al 10/901,884 BAHR 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Ex parte FELLOWES, INC. 90/010,137 5,789,051 EASTHOM 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK, & MORTIMER Third Party Requester: SHEWCHUK IP SERVICES EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal - and even common-sensical - we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.

Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

inter partes 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.p.A.,Requester and Respondent v. CHEMI S.p.A., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,138 6,645,742 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI

In order for a showing of unexpected results to overcome the teachings of the prior art, the results presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48 (CCPA 1979).

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)