swartz, enzo2, fisher, fouche, newman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Trimberger 12501445 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 41.50 112(1)/101 Stephen Trimberger BERGIN, JAMES S

In order for the specification to be enabling, it “must adequately disclose the claimed invention so as to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation.” In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) citing, Enzo-Biochem, Inc. v Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The purpose of the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. §101 is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of “real world” value. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 for lack of utility is tantamount to a rejection under the how-to-use provision of the enablement clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1243 (CCPA 1971) (“[I]f such compositions are in fact useless, appellant’s specification cannot have taught how to use them.”). As such, the lack of utility because of inoperativeness (a question of fact), and the absence of enablement (a question of law) are thus closely related grounds of unpatentability. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 863; see also Newman v Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

The claimed invention must have “a specific and substantial utility to satisfy § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371. The substantial utility requirement means

that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that the claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit the public. Id.

Swartz, In re, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2107.01 , 2164.07

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2164.06(b)

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2103 , 2107.01 , 2164.07

Fouche, In re, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) 608.01(p) , 716.02(b) , 2107.01 , 2164.07

Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 11 USPQ2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2107.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Ritter 11639004 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES KIRSCH, ANDREW THOMAS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Singer et al 12752570 - (D) KENNEDY 102/103 PPG Industries, Inc. JONES JR., ROBERT STOCKTON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Prokupets et al 10704000 - (D) McNEILL 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Hinton et al 11752988 - (D) FRAHM 103 DAVID H. JUDSON IBM CORP. (DHJ) TORRES, MARCOS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Telep et al 12376991 - (D) LANEY 102/103 WARN, HOFFMANN, P.C. VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR

hogan, plant genetic, enzo2, self,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Calvani 10/470,999 SCHEINER 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J 

Ex Parte Lange et al 10/942,021 SPIEGEL 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE 

Ex Parte Van Oorschot et al 10/072,570 McCOLLUM 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Dawes 10/489,457 NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T 

Ex Parte Wheat et al 10/407,876 OWENS 103(a) CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. EXAMINER PARSONS, THOMAS H 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Agrawal et al 10/971,321 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM Attn: Reba Pieczynski EXAMINER CHEEMA, AZAM M 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Novak THOMAS 10/601,406 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Hosur et al 10/755,603 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER REGO, DOMINIC E 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Cychosz et al 09/952,995 LORIN 103(a) BECK & TYSVER, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Stevens et al 10/310,720 PATE III 103(a) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte McIntire et al 10/663,497 MILLS 112(1) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER BAUSCH, SARAE L 

"Enablement is determined as of the effective filing date of the patent, In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 604 (CCPA 1977)." Plant Genetic Systems, N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Calgene Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124, 2164.05(a) 

Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 65 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . 2164.08 

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.,188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129(Fed. Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164.06(b) 

Ex Parte Ameye et al 10/061,622 PRATS 103(a) CYNTHIA L. FOULKE NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M 2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Spears10/970,121 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Kraguljac & Kalnay, LLC – Oracle EXAMINER BROPHY, MATTHEW J 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Dingman 10/427,362 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL 

Ex Parte Nyhan et al 09/900,674 FISCHETTI 103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D 

Appellants’ argument to these claims “fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims . . .,” and are not commensurate with the broader scope of the claims. 

In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.05 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Gardenier et al 10/621,749 BARRETT 103(a) JOHN PIETRANGELO HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHILLIPS, CHARLES E