basell, berg, eli lilly, graves, LeGrice, sasse, amgen2

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/08/2011 1623 Ex Parte Damien et al 10/920,297 FREDMAN 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN

“In determining double patenting, a one-way test is normally applied, in which "the examiner asks whether the application claims are obvious over the patent claims."” In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The two-way test “is a narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test.” Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. “The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is "solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first."” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n. 7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2444 Ex Parte Obradovich et al 09/910,510 NAPPI 103(a) CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1627 Ex Parte Perc et al 10/531,540 FREDMAN 103(a) Cozen O''Connor EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/08/2011 1724 Ex Parte Mole 10/471,304 NAGUMO 103(a) HONEYWELL/HUSCH EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2491 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/160,984 BAUMEISTER 112(2)/102(e) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/11/2011 2826 Ex Parte Stephenson et al 10/120,814 ROBERTSON 102(e) Michael G. Fletcher Fletcher, Yoder & Van Someren EXAMINER WILLIAMS, ALEXANDER O

A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.” See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)).

Further, the Federal Circuit has instructed:

In patent prosecution the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681, 207 USPQ 107, 111 (C.C.P.A.1980) (“[W]hen the PTO cited a disclosure which expressly anticipated the present invention . . . the burden was shifted to the applicant. He had to rebut the presumption of the operability of [the prior art patent] by a preponderance of the evidence.”). The applicant, however, can then overcome that rejection by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled. Id.

Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnotes omitted).

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.07, 2121, 2121.02

DISMISSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1642 Ex Parte BERNDORFF et al 12/211,198 JORDAN abandoned MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10/335,056 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte ZHAO et al 12/422,863 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE