fisher, brenner, golight

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lantz et al 10/143,822 WALSH 101/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SAUNDERS, DAVID A

The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point--where specific benefit exists in currently available form-- there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966).

Courts have used the labels “practical utility” and “real world” utility interchangeably in determining whether an invention offers a “substantial” utility. Indeed, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “‘[p]ractical utility’ is a shorthand way of attributing ‘real-world’ value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.” Nelson [v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856 (CCPA 1980)](emphasis added). It thus is clear 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 that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Id. at 1378.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02 

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Nancekievill 10/939,992 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALROBAYE, IDRISS N 

Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/347,481 HOMERE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J 

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

Ex Parte Abolfathi et al 11/271,360 MOHANTY 102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W 

Ex Parte Gopalan 09/888,470 LORIN 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Boehmer et al 10/866,627 HANLON 112(1) RICHMOND, HITCHCOCK, FISH & DOLLAR EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte CONSTRUCTION MASTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6,721,623 90/008,298 EASTHOM 103(a) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M

“Structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 355 F.3d 1327, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

fisher,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Nezu et al 10/762,154 WALSH 101/112(1) FISH & RICHARDSON PC

[A]n 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 that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public. . . . in addition to providing a “substantial” utility, an asserted use must also show that the claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Fisher, 421 F. 3d at 1378. 

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

 

Ex Parte Schmid-Schonbein et al 11/850,169 PRATS 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Chen 11/084,571 KIMLIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Ihde 10/714,200 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Den Hartog et al GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 

Ex Parte Li McCOLLUM 101/112(1) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

Section 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and specific. A substantial utility requires:

show[ing] 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 that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id. In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an asserted use must also show that [the] claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.

[T]he PTO has the initial burden of challenging a presumptively correct assertion of utility in the disclosure. Only after the PTO provides evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence sufficient to convince such a person of the invention’s asserted utility.

In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “Enablement, or utility, is determined as of the application filing date.” Id. at 1567 n.19. However, post-filing evidence “can be used to substantiate any doubts as to the asserted utility [when it] pertains to the accuracy of a statement already in the specification.” Id. In addition, “[i]t is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” 

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1378. Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01,2107.03, 2164.01(c),2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte McDonnell et al OWENS 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP 

Ex Parte Nishizawa et al OWENS 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Rovito et al GARRIS 102(b) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. 

Ex Parte Hueffer et al OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Lettmann et al PAK 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C. 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Lewin et al HOFF 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Zhou et al MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

Ex Parte Eurlings et al MARTIN 102(b)/102(e) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 

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

Ex Parte Cox et al STAICOVICI 103(a) REED SMITH LLP 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Bhatti et al PATE III 102/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Ex Parte Kalloo et al HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE PC 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Watler et al SIU 101/102(e)/103(a) FROST BROWN TODD, LLC