ruff, ariad, vas-cath,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Kivits et al 10/484,255 LEBOVITZ 102(a)/103(a) nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSON 

Ex Parte Sakuma et al 10/502,404 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Appellants also argue that a conclusion of obviousness cannot be based on equivalence known only to an applicant (Reply Br. 3 (citing In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 598 (CCPA 1958)). 

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Collins et al 10/461,022 PAK 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Adams 10/158,353 THOMAS 103(a) PATE PIERCE & BAIRD 

Ex Parte Leveille et al 11/419,936 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

Ex Parte Martin et al 10/484,541 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 

Ex Parte Barboi et al 10/981,837 HOMERE 101/112(2)/102(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/357,949 HUGHES 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec 

Thus, “the description must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharmas. v. Eli Lilly and Co., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Id. “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369 at *12 (citing Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563.) 

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

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Coles et al 10/393,729 NAPPI 103(a) JOHN C. MORAN, ATTORNEY, P.C. 

Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/537,417 HOFF 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Spinelli 11/360,401 HOFF 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 

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

Ex Parte Bellick et al 10/821,334 PATE III 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP 

Ex Parte Kummer et al 10/823,032 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Vanderbilt et al 10/640,131 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Hill 10/702,406 GREEN 103(a) MATTHEW R. JENKINS, ESQ. 

Ex Parte Podlich et al 10/874,813 LEBOVITZ 103(A)/112(1)/101 POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Zargham et al 10/013,091 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

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

Ex Parte Hogan 10/667,680 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Woodcock Washburn LLP

capon,ariad,ralston,vas-cath,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Blazewicz et al 10/402,596 KIMLIN 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LUDLOW, JAN M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/718,218 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review Ex Parte Saxe et al 10/440,988 O’NEILL 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S 

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc the scope and purpose of the written description requirement within the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court reaffirmed that the written description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement of that provision. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. , --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Further, the purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. Accordingly, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. FarMar-Co, Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The hallmark of the written description is disclosure. Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. As such, not just possession, but “‘possession as shown in the disclosure’ is a more complete formulation.” Id. Thus, the test for whether the claims are adequately described “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id. (citing Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 1575). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

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

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.02

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Motyka et al 10/828,827 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V