novozymes, capon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Sargeant et al 12778348 - (D) FREDMAN 103 41.50 102 Covidien LP BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE

1627 Ex Parte Wald et al 13799682 - (D) SCHEINER 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP SOROUSH, LAYLA

1632 Ex Parte Case 12736665 - (D) LEBOVITZ 101/102/103 SANBIO, INC. c/o LEVINE BAGADE HAN LLP MOLOYE, TITILAYO

1652 Ex Parte Bourn et al 13061940 - (D) TOWNSEND 112(1) CHOATE, HALL & STEWARTLLP HUTSON, RICHARD G

According to the Examiner, Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) requires Appellants to have "confirmed their predictions through individual variants or subclasses of variants expected to possess the claimed properties" in order to meet the written description requirement. (Id.) ...

"It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim," Capon v Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We conclude that in light of the state of the art, and the knowledge of one of skill in the art, as well as the variety of examples made by Appellants, that there is a preponderance of evidence establishing that Appellants' 18 clones are a representative number of species of the claimed genus of modified Taq DNA polymerases. 

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2161.01 , 2163

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Mikhailov et al 12259181 - (D) SCHOPPER 102/103 MPG, LLP and SONY SKAARUP, JASON M

3792 Ex Parte Colbaugh 13696450 - (D) MAJORS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PATEL, NATASHA

3792 Ex Parte Giftakis et al 12425922 - (D) MELVIN 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A WEHRHEIM, LINDSEY GAIL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Giori et al 12281994 - (D) TOWNSEND 102 102 41.50 103 Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C. WEST, THEODORE R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Schroff et al 13266905 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MCDONALD, JENNIFER SUE PITRAK

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Dethloff et al 11722813 - (D) SNAY 103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP SONG, MATTHEW J

1733 Ex Parte NOÉ 14056372 - (D) CASHION 103 KF ROSS PC KASTLER, SCOTT R

1788 Ex Parte Erasmus 13811116 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP VAZQUEZ, ELAINE M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Ferber et al 13705066 - (D) McSHANE 101 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook MUNSON, PATRICIA H

3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11241883 - (D) KIM 101/103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (eBay Inc.) LEVINE, ADAM L

3627 Ex Parte Leventhal 11979244 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 101 BLANK ROME LLP AMSDELL, DANA

3684 Ex Parte Barron et al 13270848 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 112(1)/112(2)/101 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC SHUI, MING

3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 13763002 - (D) LEE 112(2) 101/103 Rimon, P.C. NIGH, JAMES D

3693 Ex Parte Rand et al 12130698 - (D) FETTING 101 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP BARTLEY, KENNETH

3695 Ex Parte Dwyer et al 13035247 - (D) FETTING 101 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LIU, CHIA-YI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Edgar et al 12590840 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) KALACH, BRIANNE E

3783 Ex Parte FARONE et al 12245615 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC (Birmingham) CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

capon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Miller et al 13699779 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/102/103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP PAGONAKIS, ANNA

Precedent illustrates that the determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Here, Anderson demonstrates that, at the time the instant application was filed, people of ordinary skill in the art recognized that "A-type doubly linked procyanidin oligomers of the catechins and/or epicatechins," as recited in the claims, referred to a group of compounds having defined structures. The Specification therefore did not need to describe the structure of those compounds in order to show possession of the claimed method. Cf Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1358 ("The Board's rule that the nucleotide sequences of the chimeric genes must be fully presented, although the nucleotide sequences of the component DNA are known, is an inappropriate generalization. When the prior art includes the nucleotide information, precedent does not set a per se rule that the information must be determined afresh.").

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2161.01 , 2163

1631 Ex Parte Tam et al 14327529 - (D) PRATS 112(2)/112(4)/103 LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT WAI-KIT CHAN, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte HERMANN et al 13909579 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (ABB) KITT, STEPHEN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Raju et al 12971073 - (D) SHIANG 103 VERIZON ALMANI, MOHSEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Srinivasan et al 14036860 - (D) SHIANG 103 Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP KUNWAR, BINOD J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Tousain et al 13574805 - (D) HOUSEL 103 PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. LUONG, HENRY T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Hackett 13746712 - (D) FREDMAN 103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK DANG, ANH TIEU

3752 Ex Parte Hiemer 12850420 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP LEE, CHEE-CHONG

3786 Ex Parte GAGNON et al 12195637 - (D) GRIMES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PENG, BO JOSEPH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Crawford et al 12044469 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company!fhe Webb Law Firm STOUT, MICHAEL C

3782 Ex Parte Dry et al 14565749 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC WAGGENSPACK, ADAM J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Kim et al 13154702 - (D) REN Dissenting OWENS 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPIE, NATHAN H

1717 Ex Parte Bloom et al 13630259 - (D) DENNETT 103 LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte KIM et al 13115874 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP DO, STEVEN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Lovegren et al 13837251 - (D) STRAUSS 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. TRAN, PAUL P

2659 Ex Parte Ananthanarayanan et al 12944970 - (D) JEFFERY 101 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Reddy et al 13683805 - (D) CRAIG 101 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP MARCUS, LELAND R

3628 Ex Parte Leventhal 10755569 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 101 BLANK ROME LLP VETTER, DANIEL

3683 Ex Parte Flockhart et al 12955676 - (D) HAGY 101/103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE

3691 Ex Parte Evans 14082331 - (D) SHAH 101 HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS

3691 Ex Parte Primbas et al 13046837 - (D) HOFFMANN 101 MICHAEL P. MAZZA, LLC KAZIMI, HANI M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brandon 13746432 - (D) O'HANLON 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. SWIATOCHA, GREGORY D.

3746 Ex Parte Uhlig 13509512 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 LERNER GREENBERG STENER LLP BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN

capon, ariad, CFMT

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Platz et al 11/536,348 ADAMS 103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1655 Ex Parte Chern et al 11/999,637 FREDMAN 112(1) Cozen O'Connor EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
In Ariad, the court found that the written description “doctrine never created a heightened requirement to provide a nucleotide-by-nucleotide recitation of the entire genus of claimed genetic material; it has always expressly permitted the disclosure of structural features common to the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Thusoo 10/662,095 ZECHER 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER BETIT, JACOB F

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/559,382 MACDONALD 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Paradigm IP Law, PC EXAMINER TRINH, TAN H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Pierson et al 11/100,145 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Pernot et al 10/580,373 BAHR 103(a) Gary M Cohen EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

3761 Ex Parte Venkitaraman et al 11/128,579 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER TREYGER, ILYA Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Hall et al 10/418,925 PRATS 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/461,829 SCHEINER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

“Enablement does not require an inventor to meet lofty standards for success in the commercial marketplace. Title 35 does not require that a patent disclosure enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Leech et al 11/045,965 BARRY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DU, THUAN N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Romines et al 11/086,183 BROCKETTI 103(a) Law Office of Jim Boice EXAMINER SU, SARAH

2455 Ex Parte Rosenstock et al 10/676,744 DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R

2455 Ex Parte Rosenstock et al 10/676,746 DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Jones et al 09/967,232 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte King et al 10/731,759 MILLS 103(a) COZEN O'CONNOR, P.C. EXAMINER SANG, HONG

capon, vaidyanathan, belkin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly 10/661,939 FREDMAN 112(1) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, IQBAL HOSSAIN

“It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim, provided that the effect is sufficiently demonstrated to characterize a generic invention.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Kreyenschmidt et al 10/512,081 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Genske et al 09/847,811 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M

2467 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/962,558 MacDONALD 112(1)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,039 6,931,327 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

In Belkin International, Inc. et al v. Optimumpath, LLC, an expanded panel recently considered whether the Board has jurisdiction to decide SNQ matters in the context of inter partes reexamination. ... In essence, Belkin held that an SNQ attaches to a particular rejection. Accordingly, the determination that an SNQ exists with respect to a particular rejection does not necessarily permit a third party requestor to pursue proposed rejections not found to raise an SNQ outside of the attached rejection, regardless of whether or not the additional rejections are directed to the same claims. Appeal 2011-003697 (BPAI March 29, 2011) (Reexamination Control 95/001,089, Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,035,281 B1, Panel expanded for consideration of substantial new question of patentability jurisdictional issue).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 11/302,634 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TAI, XIUYU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11/163,313 NAPPI 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER MANDALA, VICTOR A

2893 Ex Parte Bhattacharya et al 10/195,527 NAPPI 102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Bogl 10/517,711 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MCDONALD, SHANTESE L
REHEARING

GRANTED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Kajita 11/237,909 NAPPI 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

NEW

REVERSED

1717 Ex Parte Skszek et al 11/140,752 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PADGETT, MARIANNE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3751 Ex Parte Harris 11/000,121 TIERNEY 103(a)/112(1) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED

1781 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/375,675 FREDMAN 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3782 Ex Parte Schneider 10/154,221 GARRIS 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F

capon,ariad,ralston,vas-cath,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Blazewicz et al 10/402,596 KIMLIN 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LUDLOW, JAN M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/718,218 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review Ex Parte Saxe et al 10/440,988 O’NEILL 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S 

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc the scope and purpose of the written description requirement within the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court reaffirmed that the written description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement of that provision. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. , --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Further, the purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. Accordingly, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. FarMar-Co, Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The hallmark of the written description is disclosure. Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. As such, not just possession, but “‘possession as shown in the disclosure’ is a more complete formulation.” Id. Thus, the test for whether the claims are adequately described “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id. (citing Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 1575). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.02

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Motyka et al 10/828,827 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V