REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Li et al 11/125,297 SCHEINER 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S
Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/274,887 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP ELAN PHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMIT EXAMINER GREENE, IVAN A
Ex Parte Marquart et al 11/099,854 SCHEINER 103(a) TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS, L.L.P EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A
Ex Parte Niklason et al 10/388,588 SPIEGEL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, QUANG
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fuller et al 10/978,981 HANLON 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
Ex Parte Shannon et al 10/823,371 KRATZ 103(a) MOSER IP LAW GROUP / APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Simelius et al 10/645,687 HUGHES 103(a) Harrington & Smith, PC EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Wilson et al 10/330,944 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) WILLIAM M. LEE, JR.BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER WONG, WARNER
Ex Parte Harter et al 10/444,468 COURTENAY 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED
Ex Parte Houldsworth 10/218,364 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LIN, JASON K
Ex Parte Jaye 10/151,794 SAADAT 103(a) BEH INVESTMENTS LLC EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q
Ex Parte Kwan 10/287,287 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Brake Hughes PLC C/O Intellevate EXAMINER CHOU, ALBERT T
Ex Parte Shanbhag 10/289,767 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER WILSON, ROBERT W
On the record before us, addressing the Examiner’s provisional rejections would be premature. See Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Seo 10/981,533 HAIRSTON 103(a) STANZIONE & KIM, LLP EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P
Ex Parte Bishop et al 10/719,476 HAIRSTON 103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT EXAMINER DEANE JR, WILLIAM J
Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/806,980 SAADAT 103(a) CRAIN, CATON & JAMES EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU K
Ex Parte Soto et al 10/886,514 HAIRSTON 103(a) Alexander Soto EXAMINER LI, SHI K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoganandan et al 11/020,998 KRIVAK 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peoples 11/448,936 McCARTHY 103(a) MYRON AMER P.C. EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Schwemberger et al 11/206,298 McCARTHY 102(b) WELSH & FLAXMAN LLC EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
Ex Parte Tornier 10/189,630 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW
Ex Parte Bourne et al 10/434,526 McCARTHY 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Weers et al 10/982,191 SCHEINER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NOVARTIS EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
ENABLEMENT
[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).
[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement. Id. at 224.
In other words, “the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention . . . this includes, of course, providing sufficient reasons for doubting any assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08
Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2107.01, 2164.03, 2164.01(a), 2164.04, 2164.05(a), 2164.06(b), 2164.08
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hesdahl et al 10/874,149 MARTIN 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1636
Ex parte COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,247 90/008,096 6,573,099 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR APPELLANT: GARY J. GERSHIK COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ERICH E. VEITENHEIMER COOLEY GODWARD, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1773
HITACHI METALS, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. SENJU METAL INDUSTRY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,105 6,387,499 BOALICK 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. Third Party Requester: JIA WEI HUANG JC PATENTS EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER KILIMAN, LESZEK B
In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962) (Prior art reference disclosing limited genus of 20 compounds rendered every species within the genus anticipated).
Petering, In re, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . 2131.02, 2131.03, 2144.08
Therefore, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)
However, a patentability determination of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2604
Ex parte LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/008,721 4,439,759 SIU 102(e) For Patent Owner: Lucent Technologies, Inc. For Third Party Requester: Kenneth L. Cage McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER CURTIS, MARSHALL M
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Gast et al
Ex Parte Hsiun et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Mukherjee et al
Ex Parte Pfrengle et al
Ex Parte Zhang et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Ackerman et al
Ex Parte Bangalore et al
Ex Parte Baranczyk et al
Ex Parte Barker
Ex Parte Boser
Ex Parte Chinchwadkar et al
Ex Parte Conti
Ex Parte Delbarre
Ex Parte Duerbaum et al
Ex Parte Fahey et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Graf et al
Ex Parte Harvin et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hung et al
Ex Parte Isham et al
Ex Parte Le
Ex Parte Lee
Ex Parte Manchala
Ex Parte Nakura et al
Ex Parte Peterson
Ex Parte Rouse et al
Ex Parte Rovira
Ex Parte Seibert
Ex Parte Sen et al
Ex Parte Shang
Ex Parte Segletes et al
Ex Parte Snyder et al
Ex Parte Terrell et al
Ex Parte Thomas et al
Ex Parte Vanderheyden et al
Ex Parte Weber
Ex Parte Wicker
Ex Parte Yao
REHEARING
Ex Parte Glickman et al
Ex Parte Tomioka et al
REMAND
Ex Parte Simrell
No comments :
Post a Comment