custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M
3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L
“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...
See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA
1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02
Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N
2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN
The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M
Appellant argues that
MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:
The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...
Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.
Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)
3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD
No comments :
Post a Comment