Wednesday December 29, 2010

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte O'Martin et al 10/429,194 LORIN 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Block et al 10/159,539 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP EXAMINER VO, HAI

In this regard, the Examiner further asserts that "[a]ny claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 3). In support, the Examiner cites Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F. 2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

However, Grasselli does not provide a per se rule providing that the addition of any negative limitation to a claim, which is not expressly set forth in an application disclosure as originally filed, automatically violates the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Compare Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236-37 (BPAI 1993).
...

See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63 (the written description requirement is a factual question).

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Parks, Ex parte, 30 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(i)

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Barazesh