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

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

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