miles labs, sensonics, gore, interconnect, energizer holdings

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1791 Ex Parte Obermann 10492787 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP DICUS, TAMRA

“The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no more.” Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.01(a)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Basir et al 11046523 - (D) KILE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MAWARI, REDHWAN K

To draw on knowledge of Appellants’ own invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made. Id. (citing with approval Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Castleberry 11258920 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102 102(2)/103 GIPPLE & HALE HAYES, KRISTEN C

If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”);

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1763 Ex Parte Takagi et al 11887435 - (D) McKELVEY 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. FINK, BRIEANN R

1764 Ex Parte Li et al 12165051 - (D) McKELVEY 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lamoureux 11256327 - (D) ANDERSON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BATURAY, ALICIA

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3628 2761 VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. v. SAP AMERICA, INC. 12-1029 6,553,350 09/253,427 5,878,400 08/664,837 RADER '350 permanent injunction infringement/damages '400 non-infringement McKool Smith, P.C., Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP POINVIL, FRANTZY HUGHET, WILLIAM N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1614 1614 ALLERGAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDOZ INC., ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., ALCON, INC., AND FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., Defendants-Appellants, AND APOTEX INC. AND APOTEX CORP., Defendants-Appellants, AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 11-1619 7,323,463 10/357,622 7,030,149 10/126,790 PROST concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part DYK '149 103 '463 103 Fish & Richardson P.C. Morrison & Foerster, LLP ALLERGAN, INC. ALLERGAN, INC. KWON, YONG SOK KWON, YONG SOK