mikus, slayter, gosteli

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Sorger et al 13132798 - (D) ROESEL 103 RATNERPRESTIA EASHOO, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Turdjian 13317329 - (D) HORNER 102/103 MOLDEX-METRIC, INC. BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Moberg et al 12768281 - (D) ENGELS 103 Medtronic Vascular - APV Division DANG, ANH TIEU

3762 Ex Parte Dicks et al 11876711 - (D) BROWNE 102 Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Cassivi 13062908 - (D) BAHR 103 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. CHENG, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Klann et al 12274765 - (D) NEWMAN 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP PYLA, PAUL D

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Ha 13129154 - (D) DENNETT 103 NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC EMPIE, NATHAN H

1765 Ex Parte Gindin et al 11208321 - (D) PRAISS 103 Covestro LLC SERGENT, RABON A

1786 Ex Parte Kaiser et al 13147186 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) GARRETT, DAWN L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Liao et al 13088464 - (D) HAGY 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BYCER, ERIC J

2441 Ex Parte Reunamaki et al 13521506 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD MUNDUR, PADMAVATHI V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte KIM et al 13860024 - (D) CRAIG 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP SARMA, ABHISHEK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Sundararaman et al 12437741 - (D) FETTING 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH JASMIN, LYNDA C

The argument is made in the wrong direction. Appellants contend that the claim recites a generic function without any specific implementation and fault the references for actually providing 
implementation examples for the generic function. A species of a genus anticipates the genus. Mikus v. Wachtel, 504 F.2d 1150, 1151 (CCPA 1974); In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Slayter, In re, 276 F.2d 408, 125 USPQ 345 (CCPA 1960) 715.03 , 2131.02

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   608.01(p) ,   715.03 ,  2131.02 ,   2136.05 ,   2163.02 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.05

3683 Ex Parte Rafei et al 13493390 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 101 Reed Smith LLP GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Findlay et al 13861834 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. COLLINS, DOLORES R

3741 Ex Parte Veninger et al 12742031 - (D) PESLAK 103 41.50 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. NGUYEN, ANDREW H

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Kross 13275400 - (R) NAGUMO 103 EDWIN D. SCHINDLER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, edwards, lukach, ariad

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 11834817 - (D) MORGAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte VOLLM et al 11740573 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Chang et al 12072578 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/102 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. MAIER, LEIGH C

The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To that end, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations” (emphasis in original). Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not necessary for the specification to describe the claimed invention ipsissimis verbis; all that is required is that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978).

When an Applicant claims a class, the Applicant “must describe that class in order to meet the description requirement of the statute.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968 (CCPA 1971). “[W]hile the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure …, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1349. “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” Id.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20 ,   2152.02(b) ,   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,  2164 ,  2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) , 2163 , 2163.02

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  608.01(p) ,   715.03 ,   2131.02 ,   2136.05 ,   2163.02 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.05

Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) 2138.05

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) 211.05 , 2152.02(b) , 2163 , 2163.05

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201090 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Pomeranz 12175302 - (D) KAISER 103 BAE SYSTEMS CARTER, MICHAEL W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7274926 et al 10/089,623 95001210 - (D) CHEN 103/314(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Third Party Requester: PERKINS COIE LLP original Kenyon & Kenyon LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original CHAN, RICHARD

transco, waldemar, lukach, gosteli, chester,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/340,288 MILLS 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Nilsson et al 10/584,246 GARRIS 103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Kaminkow 10/231,653 HORNER 101/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER HOEL, MATTHEW D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lahn et al 09/826,319 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6719434 et al MOLE-RICHARDSON CO. Requestor, Appellant v. BRUCE L. FINN Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,383 09/704,639 EASTHOM 103(a)/102(b) Fellers Snider Blankenship Baily & Tippens Third Party Requester: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL

“[T]he bottom line is that, no matter what term is used to describe a continuing application, that application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application only as to common subject matter.” Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 556(Fed. Cir. 1994). “A CIP application can be entitled to different priority dates for different claims. Claims containing any matter introduced in the CIP are accorded the filing date of the CIP application. However, matter disclosed in the parent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application.” Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . .201.11, 2107.01, 2165.01

Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 31 USPQ2d 1855 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 706.03(o)
See Application of Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969-70 (CCPA 1971) (later-filed broad range claim not supported by earlier grandparent disclosure of point in the range and anticipated by a similar disclosure in a related British patent); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (later-filed claims containing subject matter, a genus, not disclosed in foreign priority application, disclosing a subgenus of the genus claimed, not entitled to foreign priority); Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Lukach, holding that broader CIP claims in child were anticipated by the parent, which did not support the broader CIP claims).

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . .201.11, 2163, 2163.05

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 608.01(p), 715.03,
2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05
AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Rizzi et al 09/876,173 FETTING 102(e) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER JANVIER, JEAN D

rubin, kao2, cordis2, gosteli, vas-cath

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2443 Ex Parte Holmeide et al 10/465,945 HOMERE 103(a) Michael M Rickin ABB Inc EXAMINER FEARER, MARK D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11/009,575 KRIVAK 103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

The Examiner asserts there is no difference between Lee’s unitary heat treatment and the claimed invention’s two-step heat treatment (Ans. 11). In support of this conclusion, the Examiner cites Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (BPAI 1959) (Ans. 8, 11, 15, and 16). However, the Examiner’s reliance on Rubin, is misplaced, as Rubin does not address splitting one step into two, only the transposition of two steps.

Rubin, Ex parte, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Haynes et al 10/717,888 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

2183 Ex Parte Schwinn 10/932,730 HOMERE 112(1)/102(b) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M

“To fulfill the written description requirement [under 35 U.S.C. § 112], the patent specification must describe an invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 967-968 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Our reviewing court has cautioned, however, that “[t]he disclosure as originally filed does not … have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Cordis Corp., 339 F.3d at 1364 (internal citation omitted). “Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Put another way, “the applicant must … convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).

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

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 608.01(p), 715.03, 2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/361,767 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) David B. Johnson EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Fujii et al 10/532,424 HASTINGS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MAKI, STEVEN D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Brewer et al 10/862,684 MacDONALD 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Rush et al 10/756,664 MacDONALD 102(e) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) EXAMINER FEILD, JOSEPH H