SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label union oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union oil. Show all posts

Thursday, July 24, 2014

reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, edwards, lukach, ariad

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 11834817 - (D) MORGAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte VOLLM et al 11740573 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Chang et al 12072578 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/102 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. MAIER, LEIGH C

The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To that end, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must also 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.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations” (emphasis in original). Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not necessary for the specification to describe the claimed invention ipsissimis verbis; all that is required is that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978).

When an Applicant claims a class, the Applicant “must describe that class in order to meet the description requirement of the statute.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968 (CCPA 1971). “[W]hile the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure …, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1349. “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” Id.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20 ,   2152.02(b) ,   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,  2164 ,  2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) 2163 2163.02
Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  608.01(p) ,   715.03 ,   2131.02 ,   2136.05 ,   2163.02 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.05

Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) 2138.05

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) 211.05 2152.02(b) 2163 2163.05

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 2181

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201090 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Pomeranz 12175302 - (D) KAISER 103 BAE SYSTEMS CARTER, MICHAEL W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7274926 et al 10/089,623 95001210 - (D) CHEN 103/314(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Third Party Requester: PERKINS COIE LLP original Kenyon & Kenyon LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original CHAN, RICHARD

Monday, March 18, 2013

umbarger, ratti, union oil, vas-cath


REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Huebner et al 12074169 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. NAGPAUL, JYOTI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Diez et al 11630408 - (D) HORNER 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. LEE, GILBERT Y

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Grove et al 10843636 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 US ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Immordino et al 11639793 - (D) KRATZ 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. BARCENA, CARLOS

1743 Ex Parte Knobel 10519292 - (D) GARRIS 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. BODAWALA, DIMPLE N

1779 Ex Parte Nunes et al 11165474 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

However, it has been established that the claim need not use the same words as the specification, but rather it is enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We, therefore, conclude Appellants’ Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants were in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1504.20, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chidlovskii et al 11170542 - (D) SIU 101/103 FAY SHARPE LLP PAULA, CESAR B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Skraba et al 11152244 - (D) ZECHER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT FAN, HUA

2491 Ex Parte Fineberg 10121188 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Moulin et al 11662106 - (D) HORNER 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor&Zafman LLP SINGH, SUNIL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Rothschild 10850993 - (D) HORNER 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIM, SENG HENG

The difference between using ROM to store a fixed memory of graphics to be displayed by the gaming machine versus downloading the graphics to be displayed on the gaming machine from a remote location (e.g., server) does not affect the overall principle of operation of Ozaki’s gaming machine. See In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31 (CCPA 1969) (finding In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before.”).

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

3766 Ex Parte Daly 11192014 - (D) CALVE 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
 
REHEARING  

DENIED  
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Harris 10216268 - (D) THOMAS 102 CURTIS, NEIL & ELWOOD, LLC CHEN, TE Y