SEARCH

PTAB.US

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Showing posts with label ibormeith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ibormeith. Show all posts

Friday, May 7, 2021

ibormeith, armbruster






custom search

Reversed 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION 15509438 NEW 102/103 41.50 102/103 VIKSNINS HARRIS PADYS MALEN LLP
SIMMONS, CHRIS E

1642 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. 15111328 FLAX 112(1)/112(2)/101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS COOK, LISA V

Thus, the claimed invention boils down to identifying whether two known components are present in the nuclei of sampled cells from a particular patient and then classifying that patient into one of just a few categories for potential treatment. “Section 112 does not require that a specification convince persons skilled in the art that the assertions therein are correct.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678 (CCPA 1975). 

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) , 2161 , 2181

1644 CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 14773497 NEW 103 Perkins Coie LLP - CHI EWOLDT, GERALD R

1712 TOSHIBA MITSUBISHI-ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION 15305397 GAUDETTE 103 XSENSUS LLP VETERE, ROBERT A

1718 NEDERLANDSE ORGANISATIE VOOR TOEGEPAST-NATUURWETENSCHAPPELIJK ONDERZOEK TNO 14766362 SNAY 103 Banner & Witcoff, LTD KENDALL, BENJAMIN R

1742 Xerox Corporation 14875959 DENNETT 103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP GRACE, KELSEY C

1783 GKN Sinter Metals Engineering GmbH 15307243 BEST 102/103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP MILLER, DANIEL H

1795 Vapor Technologies, Inc. 14736934 TIMM 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. / Masco Corporation KEELING, ALEXANDER W

2164 Amber Watkins et al. 15336622 THOMAS 103 DUFT & BORNSEN, PC STEVENS, ROBERT

2193 International Business Machines Corporation 14724754 AMUNDSON 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC PAULINO, LENIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 ELBIT VISION SYSTEMS LTD. 15292242 KUMAR 103 Daniel J. Swirsky TORRENTE, RICHARD T

2868 Integrated Technology Corporation 15455810 ROBERTSON 103 KUSNER & JAFFE ZAKARIA, AKM

2896 AIRBUS DEFENCE AND SPACE GMBH 15381873 OWENS 102/103 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. MUNOZ, DANIEL

3629 Wong Hoo Sim et al. 13143979 CRAWFORD 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3643 Spectrum Brands, Inc. 14745655 GRIMES 103 M&G Spectrum NGUYEN, SON T

3643 Skyscraper Farm LLC 15378927 STEPINA 103 41.50 112(2) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) NGUYEN, SON T

3647 SIGNIFY NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION 14992935 STEPINA 112(1)/101/103 Signify Holding B.V. EVANS, EBONY E

3669 WABCO GmbH 15312834 STEPINA 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC - Ann Arbor WILTEY, NICHOLAS K

3685 Kim Brouard et al. 12879285 SILVERMAN 103 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA KIM, STEVEN S

3731 MAX CO., LTD. 15272778 BROWN 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. KIM, CHRISTOPHER ROBIN

3733 PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC. 13841363 PLENZLER concurring FITZPATRICK 102/103 41.50 112(2) FISHMAN STEWART PLLC MAI, TRI M

3734 Voim Companies, Inc. 15275647 PESLAK 102 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. ATTEL, NINA KAY

3763 EVAPCO, INC. 14630096 HOELTER 103 WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP ATTN: GREGORY M STONE LEO, LEONARD R

As is well-known, in exchange for using a “means for” form of claiming, Appellant’s Specification must disclose with sufficient particularity the corresponding structure for performing the claimed function, and clearly link that structure to the function. See Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

3783 Scott Davis et al. 13536477 OSINSKI 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP FARRAR, LAUREN PENG

3793 St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. 15578379 STEPINA 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ) MOHAMMED, SHAHDEEP

Affirmed-in-Part 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1661 Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. 15241260 KATZ 102/103 112(1)/OTDP Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL

1741 SAINT-GOBAIN ISOVER 16166774 SNAY 103 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Inspectron, Inc. 15412532 CYGAN 103 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC - Ann Arbor RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J

3628 Stamps.com Inc. 13924337 SCHOPFER 103 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P

3771 VOLCANO CORPORATION 14204314 GUIJT 103 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LOUIS, RICHARD G

Affirmed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 KING SAUD UNIVERSITY 16120120 ADAMS 103 Richard C. Litman Nath, Goldberg & Meyer KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1627 Hygia Pharmaceuticals, LLC 13972274 VALEK 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1646 ULTIMOVACS AS 15498728 ADAMS 102/103 112(1)/102/103 HoustonHogle LLP MCCOLLUM, ANDREA K

1653 Archangel Inc. 15558700 TOWNSEND 112(2)/103 Trenner Law Firm, LLC Mark D. Trenner PYLA, PAUL D

1699 DSM IP ASSETS B.V. 15518080 KATZ 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

1711 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY 14920809 PRAISS 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY CARRILLO, BIBI SHARIDAN

1713 Lam Research Corporation 14576978 MCGEE 103 Beyer Law Group LLP/Lam PHAM, THOMAS T

1717 Applied Materials Inc. 14485505 SNAY 103 Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/AMAT DAGENAIS-ENGLEHA, KRISTEN A

1724 Volkswagen AG et al.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AhTRUY0Nq41ZdCCxe_Nx0Eea0MWKzBrX/view?usp=sharing 15432328 COLAIANNI 102/103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC LYLES-IRVING, CARMEN V

1747 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 14072318 HASTINGS 103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP MAYES, DIONNE WALLS

1761 Arkema France 16027602 HOUSEL 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC HARDEE, JOHN R

1783 Teijin Limited 14011066 CASHION 103 Banner & Witcoff, LTD WEYDEMEYER, ETHAN

1783 CORNING INCORPORATED 15886300 DENNETT 112(1)/103 CORNING INCORPORATED FIGG, TRAVIS M

1786 OCV Intellectual Capital, LLC 15055893 SMITH 103/OTDP Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP LOPEZ, RICARDO E.

1786 OCV Intellectual Capital, LLC 15055898 SMITH 103/OTDP Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP LOPEZ, RICARDO E.

1797 Michael URBAN et al. 14073320 TIMM 103 Abel Schillinger, LLP FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

2114 Microsoft Corporation 14484592 ARPIN 103 MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) PATEL, JIGAR P

2128 Martin Tank 13978106 BEAMER 103 Studebaker & Brackett PC BROCK, ROBERT S

2153 Taiger Spain SL 15199609 BRANCH 102/103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP DAVANLOU, SOHEILA

2157 Pitney Bowers Inc. 14946847 DANG 103 101 PITNEY BOWES INC. BOGACKI, MICHAL LAWRENCE

2178 International Business Machines Corporation 14292841 EVANS 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D

2193 International Business Machines Corporation 14453164 AMUNDSON 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC PAULINO, LENIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Viacom International Inc. 15886514 BRANCH 102/103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP JOHNSON-CALDERON, FRANK J

2432 DrFirst.com, Inc. 14606843 RAEVSKY 112(2) 103 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP / DR. FIRST INC. BELL, KALISH K

2451 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 13799156 MORGAN 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN JAHNIGE, CAROLINE H

2461 Alcatel Lucent 14654690 SILVERMAN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. BAIG, ADNAN

2465 Lear Corporation 14513751 NAPPI 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN

2481 SYSMEX CORPORATION 15361229 CRAIG 103 METROLEX IP LAW GROUP, PLLC TEKLE, DANIEL T

2483 MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC. 14957708 CHUNG 103 HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA BECKER, JOSEPH W

2616 Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation 15979212 DEJMEK 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby) SUN, HAI TAO

2645 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) 15102615 JEFFERY 102/103 ERICSSON INC. CHEN, JUNPENG

2649 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. 15538052 FRAHM 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CHEN, ZHITONG

2683 Gravino, Douglas David. et al. 12941385 DANG 112(2)/103 Cox Communications, Inc. c/o Next IP Law Group LLP SYED, NABIL H

2683 Universal Electronics Inc. 16057544 DROESCH 102/103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP BROWN, VERNAL U

2836 Eaton Corporation 14825243 RANGE 102/103 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EATON CORPORATION AMRANY, ADI

2857 SHELL OIL COMPANY 14441225 OWENS 101 SHELL OIL COMPANY CHARIOUI, MOHAMED

2865 INNOVATIVE PRESSURE TESTING, LLC 15107193 GUPTA 103 41.50 103 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. KAY, DOUGLAS

2875 SERGIY VASYLYEV 15231063 SNAY 103 SERGIY VASYLYEV BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN

3619 OWEN OIL TOOLS LP 15253057 PESLAK 103 Mossman, Kumar & Tyler PC GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS

3669 Robert Bosch GmbH 15521548 ASTORINO 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP HUTCHINSON, ALAN D

3686 Ajay Thukral et al. 12492801 CRAWFORD 101 DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP WILLIAMS, TERESA S

3688 Facebook, Inc. 15299330 SHAW 112(1) 103 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA

3688 International Business Machines Corporation 14632185 WHITEHEAD JR. 103 101 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.

3688 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. 15134341 MOHANTY 103 101 ESPLIN & ASSOCIATES c/o DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. LONG, MEREDITH A

3691 MasterCard International Incorporated 15609333 CRAWFORD 101 Mastercard International Incorporated c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
MALHOTRA, SANJEEV

3747 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH 13690754 DEFRANCO 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) CAMPBELL, JOSHUA A

Rehearing

Denied
2121 Zhang, Xuezhi 12762298 CYGAN 102 Xuezhi Zhang WONG, LUT
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Thursday, January 23, 2014

envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

 Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

 A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

 Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184

 B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182

 Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

 [t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

 In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04

 Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

 AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

 Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

 3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )