SEARCH

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

Thursday, February 4, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Van Den Brink et al GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kakizaki et al TIMM 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Cho et al KRIVAK 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY, L.L.P.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Fujimori HOFF 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971), sets forth the burden of proof required to overcome an inherency rejection:

[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or
property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a
claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally,
where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation
asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter
may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the
authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be
in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. [439 F.2d at
212-13, 58 CCPA at 1031, 169 USPQ at 229.] This burden was involved in
In re
Ludtke
, 441 F.2d 660, 58 CCPA 1159, 169 USPQ 563 (1971), and is applicable to
product and process claims reasonably considered as possessing the allegedly
inherent characteristics.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977).

Swinehart, In re, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . .2114, 2173.01, 2173.05(g) , 2183

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bloom et al LORIN obviousness-type double patenting/112(2)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON PC

Ex Parte Jain et al FETTING 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) McGinn & Gibb PLLC

No comments :