Thursday August 12, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Or 10/763,377 McCOLLUM 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC
Examiner Name: KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Rogers et al 09/742,946 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
Examiner Name: KE, PENG

Ex Parte Straub et al 10/133,619 JEFFERY 112(1)/103(a) D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB
Examiner Name: SMITH, GARRETT A

Ex Parte Xu 09/748,895 LUCAS 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, CHAU T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Zhao et al 10/200,255 NAPPI 103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
Examiner Name: PAREKH, NITIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Reaves et al 10/987,920 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP
Examiner Name: TRUONG, THANH K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cole et al 10/113,703 FETTING 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION
Examiner Name: COBANOGLU, DILEK B

As long as the reference discloses all of the claim limitations and enables the “subject matter that falls within the scope of the claims at issue,” the reference anticipates—no “actual creation or reduction to practice” is required. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). This is so despite the fact that the description provided in the anticipating reference might not otherwise entitle its author to a patent. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussing the “distinction between a written description adequate to support a claim under § 112 and a written description sufficient to anticipate its subject matter under §102(b)”). In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Further, where a method claim is at issue, it is a largely meaningless formulation of the standard to require a reference to disclose how to "make" that method in order to anticipate. For method claims, the "make" requirement becomes, in effect, a "use" requirement. The only way one can show that a reference enables the method is to show that a person of ordinary skill would know how to use--in other words, to practice or to carry out--the method in light of the reference. This does not mean, however, that the prior art reference must demonstrate the invention's utility. For instance, in the context of a claimed method for treating a disease, prior art reference need not disclose "proof of efficacy" to anticipate the claim. Id. at 1335.

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

Donohue, In re, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . 2121.01, 2121.02, 2131.01

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

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2811
Ex parte MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. Appellant 90/007,873 5,847,450 BOALICK 103(a)FOR PATENT OWNER: BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
Examiner Name: KIELIN, ERIK J

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Schleifer
Ex Parte Wroblewski et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Candelore et al
Ex Parte Hamlin
Ex Parte Nieman et al
Ex Parte Paatero
Ex Parte Sawoska et al
Ex Parte Spahn
Ex Parte Wang et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Lieb et al
Ex Parte Numano et al