SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Showing posts with label marzocchi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marzocchi. Show all posts

Friday, July 3, 2015

armbruster, marzocchi, angstadt, sullivan, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Bastian 12420311 - (D) HORVATH 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. SHIN, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Taylor et al 12830810 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2) ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC k-Space Associates, Inc. KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL

As the predecessor to our reviewing court stated in In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975):

[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.

(quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).
 However, the Examiner did not supply a sufficient reason to doubt the object truth of the statements in the Specification.  Nor did the Exminer proffer any evidence to show that the above spectra preprocessing steps could not be conducted without "undue experimentation."  In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976) (explaining that the Examiner has the "burden of giving reason, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification in not enabling.... Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO's initial burden ....")  The Examiner did not even meaningfully address the Rule 132 Affidavits of record relied upon by Appellants to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform the above spectra preprocessing steps recited in the claims based on the information provided in the Specification.  Compare Ans. 8 with App. Br. 6-7; In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaning that failure to meaningfully address submitted evidence is error). Rather than focusing on the sufficiency of any underlying evidence and/or any passages of the Specification relied upon by the affiants for their averments, the Examiner inappropriately ignored the contents of the Rule 132 Affidavits because the affiants were deemed experts, rather that one of ordinary skill in the art.  Ans. 8; see, e.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that an expert testimony can be relied on to show the state of the art, e.g., the knowledge of one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.)

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) 2161 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971)  2107.01 ,   2107.02 ,   2124 ,   2163 ,   2163.04 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.04 ,   2164.08

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01 2164.06 2164.08(b)

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Hanes 11669232 - (D) KAISER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MESA, JOSE M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Rasmusson et al 12127462 - (D) FINK 112(2) 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC CRADDOCK, ROBERT J

Friday, March 13, 2015

angstadt, vaeck, armbruster, marzocchi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Stanton 11601524 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. CHANDRA, SATISH

1756 Ex Parte Detournay et al 12305444 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Solvay America, Inc. PHASGE, ARUN S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2879 Ex Parte Tu et al 12440039 - (D) OWENS 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS STERN, JACOB R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Becken et al 11992369 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification 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). When “a [S]pecification disclosure…contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented[,]” such [S]pecification disclosure “must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975) (quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).

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

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) 2161 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) 2107.01 ,   2107.02 ,   2124 ,   2163 ,   2163.04 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.04 ,   2164.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12372681 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte Hildebrandt et al 11911185 - (D) ZADO 103 102/103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP MANDEVILLE, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Franer et al 10943222 - (D) WIEKER 103 102/103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC MCEVOY, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Guilford et al 10289934 - (D) JENKS 103 Daneker, McIntire, Schumm, Prince, Manning & Widmann, P.C. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mager et al 11732574 - (D) SMITH 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

1766 Ex Parte Rische et al 11732575 - (D) SMITH 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Lessing et al 12339983 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 TERADATA CORPORATION PEACH, POLINA G

2166 Ex Parte Malik 12043521 - (D) SHIANG 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC YEN, SYLING

2172 Ex Parte LEE 11835673 - (D) HARLOW 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HUR, ECE

2199 Ex Parte Besbris et al 11281887 - (D) SHIANG 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan MITCHELL, JASON D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Brown 11687545 - (D) BEAMER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) DUONG, DUC T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte McCloud et al 12966953 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Moon et al 12497261 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP TRAN, NGUYEN

2864 Ex Parte Tran et al 12244096 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HWANG, TIMOTHY

Friday, January 24, 2014

marzocchi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Ohman et al 11661412 - (D) HASTINGS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON HEINCER, LIAM J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Boss et al 10942418 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Robert H. Frantz KEATON, SHERROD L

2161 Ex Parte Meacham et al 11234697 - (D) GRIMES 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. LE, HUNG D

The Examiner has not cited evidence showing that this statement is not accurate. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (specification is “presumptively accurate” and examiner has the burden of showing it is not).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) 2107.01 , 2107.02 , 2124 , 2163 , 2163.04 , 2164.03 , 2164.04 , 2164.08
DONNER 9: 15, 25, 39, 195, 218, 332, 490, 814; 10: 283

2191 Ex Parte Waddington et al 11222418 - (D) MacDONALD 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. RAMPURIA, SATISH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Shaw et al 11496144 - (D) MOHANTY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, MINH CHAU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Luther et al 10965624 - (D) JENKS 103 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC PILLAI, NAMITHA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Bodner et al 11014105 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 112(2) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC BAYS, PAMELA M

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Brusk et al 10318165 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 SCA Hygiene Products AB c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Napolitano et al 12126568 - (D) BEST 103 ADDMG - 27975 CHAN, HENG M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Sismanis 11465155 - (D) KALAN 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS RUIZ, ANGELICA

2172 Ex Parte Parker et al 11060607 - (D) FREDMAN 103 J. B. Kraft PILLAI, NAMITHA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Jones et al 12169885 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. / Weatherford PATEL, HARSHAD R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte BOOKSTAFF 12392192 - (D) FETTING 102 TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC AMSDELL, DANA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex parte KEMIRA CHEMICALS, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 90011471 7,786,054 11/779,509 GUEST 103 King & Spalding JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original ADMASU, ATNAF S

SUPREME COURT

REVERSED 
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. MIROWSKI FAMILY VENTURES, LLC 12–1128 BREYER in DJ action burden stays with patentee to show infringement

Friday, November 11, 2011

marzocchi

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Borodic et al 11/046,721 WALSH 103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER FORD, VANESSA L

1649 Ex Parte Demuth et al 12/202,774 McCOLLUM 112(1) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER CHERNYSHEV, OLGA N

However, the enablement requirement does not require definitive data. Instead,

a specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.

In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971) (emphasis in original).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Heslop et al 10/492,754 OWENS 10
2(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Lieber et al 10/812,653 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Harvard University & Medical School c/o Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Eldridge et al 10/995,004 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TABOR, AMARE F

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Schrunk 10/900,831 HOELTER 103(a) 103(a) LEMAIRE PATENT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER FONSECA, JESSIE T


REEXAMINATION
Link
EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3711 Ex Parte 5775995 et al Ex parte ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 90/009,523 & 90/010,663 COCKS 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) PATENT OWNER: DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JOSEPH T. JAKUBEK KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2105 Ex Parte 6155906 et al AMANDA MAY, Appellant and Patent Owner v. WACOAL AMERICA, INC., Respondent and Third Party Requester 95/000,065 LANE 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b)/103(a) TOLER LAW GROUP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R originally OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAINGER, QUANA MASHELL
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Nasarabadi et al 11/159,008 SCHEINER 112(1) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER YANG, NELSON C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Ansari et al 10/766,164 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Newby et al 10/413,623 BROWN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

marzocchi, langer, W.L. Gore

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Borgers et al 12/108,262 GRIMES 103(a) Glaxo Smith Kline c/o The Nath Law Group EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

However, the Specification’s disclosure is presumed to be accurate, and the burden is on the Examiner to provide evidence that it is not. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (“[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”); In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391 (CCPA 1974) (“[A] specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope.”).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

La
nger, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03, 2124
1641 Ex Parte Gjerde 12/004,726 WALSH 103(a) PHYNEXUS, INC. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/852,927 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1715 Ex Parte Hass et al 10/489,090 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1713 Ex Parte Shatwell 10/504,204 PAK 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER TRAN, BINH X

See also, W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention . . ., when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.”).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Swank 10/990,891 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3679 Ex Parte Jamison et al 11/256,596 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Alholm et al 11/510,320 LEBOVITZ 102(b) TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP EXAMINER HAYMAN, IMANI N

3773 Ex Parte Miles et al 10/186,307 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/472,556 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Gilmour et al 10/135,254 LUCAS Concurring-In-Part THOMAS 101/103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, CAM Y T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Vernon 11/180,796 KIM 102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3635 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/773,757 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) JERRY TURNER SEWELL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q


REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102/103 M. P. Williams EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D