Thursday July 22, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Netzer et al 10/337,261 GREEN 103(a) HOXIE & ASSOCIATES LLC
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Friend et al 10/400,970 KRIVAK 103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
BLAIR, DOUGLAS B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Diamantopoulos 10/506,744 KERINS 102(a)/103(a) SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
Examiner Name:
HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cases et al 10/446,441 GREEN 112(1)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G

“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

For antibody claims, which are defined by their function rather than the structure of the antibody per se, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our reviewing court, has adopted the USPTO Written Description Guidelines:

[A]s persuasive authority for the proposition that a claim directed to “any antibody which is capable of binding to antigen X” would have sufficient support in a written description that disclosed “fully characterized antigens.” Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines, at 60, available at http://www.uspto.gov.web.menu.written.pdf (last visited Jan. 16, 2003) (emphasis added).

Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

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

Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 69 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/008,352 and 90/010,035 6,712,387 SONG 112(1) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requestor: RICHARD K.DEMILLE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
Examiner Name:
KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PORT-A-COOL, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,567 6,223,548 SONG 103(a) JONES & SMITH, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: John M. Bradshaw, Esq. WOODARD, EMHARDT, NAUGHTON, MORIARTY & MCNETT
Examiner Name:
JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Green et al

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Akins et al
Ex Parte Hansen et al
Ex Parte Kubota et al
Ex Parte Martinez Ponce
Ex Parte Scherer et al