sud-chemie, clemens

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hochberg 10676287 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Henry D. Coleman BADIO, BARBARA P

Although “evidence of unexpected results and other secondary considerations will not necessarily overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness” (Süd-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009)), in the present case, we find that Appellant’s evidence of unexpected results, weighs in favor of nonobviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. ...

Although we find Appellant’s evidence of unexpected results persuasive, our analysis does not end here because “‘objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980).

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) 716.02(d) , 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Surwit et al 12793029 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L

vas-cath, ruschig, sud-chemie

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Casey et al 11702895 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP KETTER, JAMES S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11793847 - (D) TORCZON 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. LEE, REBECCA Y

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Bryant et al 11278829 - (D) DILLON 103 IBM CORPORATION GUPTA, MUKTESH G

2492 Ex Parte Grebus et al 11013197 - (D) HOMERE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RAHIM, MONJUR

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Fisher et al 09781917 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 Gregory J. Koerner Redwood Patent Law JERABEK, KELLY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Nastacio 10845964 - (D) KIM 102/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy JEANTY, ROMAIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Zhao-Wilson et al 11378032 - (D) PRATS 112(1) 112(1)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MARTINELL, JAMES

The written description requirement obliges an applicant to “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Thus, where an applicant had, by amendment, inserted into an application a claim to a specific chemical compound encompassed by the specification’s generic disclosure, our reviewing court’s predecessor found that the specification failed to describe the compound as being part of the invention because the specification lacked sufficient “blaze marks” to guide a skilled practitioner to the claimed compound from the broader disclosure. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967).

Consistent with the blaze marks directive, in addressing the issue of incorporation by reference, the Federal Circuit has stated that the “host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

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

Ruschig, In re, 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Jung et al 09775315 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP ANTHONY, JULIAN

In addition, we emphasize that, although secondary considerations such as unexpected results must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion. See Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]vidence of unexpected results and other secondary considerations will not necessarily overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness”);

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 09838205 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Cao 10852280 - (D) FRAHM 103 Brake Hughes PLC C/O Portfolio IP LAM, TUAN THIEU

2874 Ex Parte Stingl et al 12220784 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 CORNING INCORPORATED TRAN, HOANG Q

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gilder et al  11217985 - (D)  BAHR 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PRONE, JASON D

3736 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11295247 - (D) MILLS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FOREMAN, JONATHAN M

3739 Ex Parte Eggleston 11242475 - (D) FREDMAN 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP GOOD, SAMANTHA M

3761 Ex Parte Qin et al  11640042 - (D)  JENKS 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MARCETICH, ADAM M

3762 Ex Parte Yu et al 11113809 - (D) MILLS 112(2)/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. GETZOW, SCOTT M