custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791
Ex Parte Obermann 10492787 - (D) HASTINGS
112(2)/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP DICUS, TAMRA
“The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no more.”
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.01(a)
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665
Ex Parte Basir et al 11046523 - (D) KILE
103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MAWARI, REDHWAN K
To draw on knowledge of Appellants’ own invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction.
Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing
W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made. Id. (citing with approval
Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643
Ex Parte Castleberry 11258920 - (D) HOFFMANN
112(2)/102 102(2)/103 GIPPLE & HALE HAYES, KRISTEN C
If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”);
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763
Ex Parte Takagi et al 11887435 - (D) McKELVEY
103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. FINK, BRIEANN R
1764
Ex Parte Li et al 12165051 - (D) McKELVEY
103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC BOYLE, ROBERT C
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441
Ex Parte Lamoureux 11256327 - (D) ANDERSON
103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BATURAY, ALICIA
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3628 2761
VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. v. SAP AMERICA, INC. 12-1029 6,553,350 09/253,427 5,878,400 08/664,837 RADER '350
permanent injunction infringement/damages '400
non-infringement McKool Smith, P.C., Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP POINVIL, FRANTZY HUGHET, WILLIAM N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1614 1614
ALLERGAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDOZ INC., ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., ALCON, INC., AND FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., Defendants-Appellants, AND APOTEX INC. AND APOTEX CORP., Defendants-Appellants, AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 11-1619 7,323,463 10/357,622 7,030,149 10/126,790 PROST concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part DYK '149
103 '463
103 Fish & Richardson P.C. Morrison & Foerster, LLP ALLERGAN, INC. ALLERGAN, INC. KWON, YONG SOK KWON, YONG SOK
