REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Hwang et al 11/580,713 BARRY 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHILLIPS, III, ALBERT M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte McCrory et al 11/033,024 GREENHUT 102(b) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP EXAMINER PALO, FRANCIS T
What is lacking from the Examiner’s determinations of inherency is evidence or reasoning to show that the allegedly inherent feature or property must necessarily result from Mimura’s process or structure, respectively. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Levy, Ex parte, 17 USPQ2d 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112
3662 Ex Parte Martin et al 10/529,192 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) WesternGeco L.L.C. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Zhuang et al 11/390,696 OWENS 102(b) 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Jerding et al 10/957,849 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Mottier et al 10/815,724 STEPHENS 103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LAM, KENNETH T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Emery et al 10/749,602 PRATS 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Stux et al 11/307,367 PAK 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE
It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the [S]pecification is not enabling . . . Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This enablement requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the written description requirement of that provision. See, e.g., Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (“Since its inception, this court has consistently held that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement.”)
Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) . . . 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)
Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08
1727 Ex Parte MATSUI et al 11/979,403 HASTINGS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A
1781 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11/370,137 KATZ 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Rigoutsos 10/305,582 DIXON 101/102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LY, CHEYNE D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Ruiz et al 10/408,037 SIU 103(a) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Felbach 10/838,234 RUGGIERO 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEFF, MICHAEL R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Theel 10/668,049 KIM 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
3711 Ex Parte Turnpaugh et al 11/619,744 PER CURIAM 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER
3737 Ex Parte Ritter et al 09/842,417 HORNER 102(b) Bryan K. Wheelock Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER CASLER, BRIAN L
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
No comments :
Post a Comment