montgomery, MEHL halliburton, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Willison et al 10187666 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

“The keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitability. For anticipation by inherency, a later-claimed invention must have necessarily resulted from the practice of a prior art reference. Our precedent has been steadfast in this strict requirement of inevitability.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 11605167 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12024176 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HOEY, ALISSA L

Our reviewing court instructs us that an applicant “is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.” Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court recently instructed us that claims must at least “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the [claimed subject matter] with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kouhi et al 11999586 - (D) KRIVAK 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT HITT GAINES, PC HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2491 Ex Parte Bomma 11935758 - (D) CHUNG 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Pildner 11521707 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TYCO FIRE PROTECTION JAMAL, ALEXANDER

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 11948458 - (D) PAULRAJ 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TAN, ALVIN H