purdue pharma

custom search

Reversed
1627 Daniel Banov 13918376 KATZ 103 41.50 112(1)/112(2) GableGotwals CHONG, YONG SOO

These facts are similar to those in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., where “a characteristic that is not discussed even in passing in the disclosure” was claimed and then made the characteristic the basis of claims that cover any formulation having that characteristic.  230 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  According to the court, “this is exactly the type of overreaching the written description requirement was designed to guard against.”  Id.

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163 , 2163.05 

2656 Jaiganesh Balakrishnan 14323280 DEJMEK 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED LE, LANA N

2851 Gabor Drasny et al. 14547820 REN 101 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DL) DeLizio Law SIEK, VUTHE

2865 Daniel L. Gysling 14719046 HASTINGS 101 EXPRO METERS, INC. DINH, LYNDA

3638 Steven K. Gilliam 14483449 STEPINA 103 FAY SHARPE LLP SADLON, JOSEPH

3678 Chris Orritt et al. 13464937 SCHOPFER 103 Evoqua Water Technologies LLC SKROUPA, JOSHUA A

3686 James S. Cox et al. 15012887 WHITEHEAD JR. 101 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC GO, JOHN P

3697 Nathaniel Christopher. Herwig 12847435 BAIN 101 NCR Corporation TRAN, HAI

3697 Ronald D. Carter et al. 13287640 BARRY 101 Mastercard International Incorporated c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC TRAN, HAI

3732 Yelena Olshansky 15331418 HOFFMANN 103 DLA Piper LLP (US) Boston LYNCH, MEGAN E

3732 Nathaniel Kolmes et al. 11439273 STAICOVICI 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WORRELL JR, LARRY D

3735 Sallie Piering 14550044 GREENHUT Dissenting CAPP 103 MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC VAN BUSKIRK, JAMES M

3741 Anthony B. Swift et al. 14870175 ASTORINO 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY KANG, EDWIN G

3794 Brian Kelly et al. 14114345 OSINSKI 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. OUYANG, BO

Affirmed-in-Part
1611 Fang Liu et al. 13603984 SCHNEIDER 103 103 Gruneberg and Myers PLLC BARHAM, BETHANY P

1641 Matthias Moehrle 13678998 PRATS 103 103 Harness Dickey (Troy) CRAWFORD, ERIK B

1711 James Quentin. Pollett 14703929 BEST 102/103 103 Dority & Manning, P.A. and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. BELL, SPENCER E

2651 David Welner et al. 12101185 FENICK 103 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC NGUYEN, DUC MINH

2847 Monnir Boureghda et al. 14027530 CASS 103 103 41.50 112(2) MacDermid Performance Solutions - Patents c/o Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP TSO, STANLEY

3627 John Daniel. Beatty et al. 14925966 MacDONALD 101/103 101/103 Daylight Law, P.C. CHAMPAGNE, LUNA

Affirmed
1635 Steven F. Dowdy et al. 11776317 KATZ 103 Gavrilovich, Dodd & Lindsey LLP SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1642 Douglas A. Levine 13624922 PRATS 101 103 CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP/MSKCC SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH AEDER, SEAN E

1657 Gabriela Cezar et al. 12899354 FLAX 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1718 Nestor Rodriguez San Juan et al. 13120109 McMANUS 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company / The Webb Firm YU, YUECHUAN

1723 Jim William. Dunham et al. 14630951 MCGEE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford SIDDIQUEE, MUHAMMAD S

1767 Seiichi Katou et al. 13876978 HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

2174 James Stewart. Rankin et al. 14480670 DIRBA 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL PACK, CONRAD R

2416 Ali S. Khayrallah 14465374 FRAHM 101 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP AUNG, SAI

2683 Samuel John. Von Bose et al. 12844483 HUME Concurring BUSCH 103 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/Walmart Apollo HOLLOWAY III, EDWIN C

2844 Anatoli Saveliev et al. 13126256 RANGE 102 Lumileds (PLG) LUQUE, RENAN

3623 Vincent Beraudier et al. 13861483 HUME 112(1) 101/103/OTDP Shutts & Bowen LLP KASSIM, HAFIZ A

3628 Leonid Feyder 13907451 SILVERMAN 101 DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP VETTER, DANIEL

3657 Christopher David. Hilton et al. 14126851 WOODS 103 The Mason Group Patent Specialists LLC LANE, NICHOLAS J

3681 Satyan Ranganath 13316877 FRAHM 101/103 JPMorgan Chase / Greenblum & Bernstein BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

3691 Scott Alan. Brozek et al. 14040269 BUSCH 101 DANIEL M. FITZGERALD (21652) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP KAZIMI, HANI M

3726 Scott Carpenter et al. 13801173 FITZPATRICK 103 ROSENBAUM IP HOLLY, LEE A

3732 Walter Gordon. Schulein et al. 11778340 STAICOVICI 103 112(1) OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3745 Brian Ellis. Clouse et al. 14781328 CAPP 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY HAGHIGHIAN, BEHNOUSH

monarch knitting, purdue pharma

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Cragun et al 10/600,382 PERRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

2179 Ex Parte Grotjohn 10/329,277 HOMERE 101/102(b) STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP EXAMINER CHUONG, TRUC T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Hesse et al 10/917,836 STAICOVICI 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Ooki et al 10/668,260 BISK 103(a) 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Datar et al 11/394,135 KIM 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3629 Ex Parte DiMarco 10/379,188 FETTING 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) ANTHONY M. DIMARCO EXAMINER MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

AFFIRMED

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Heller 10/354,842 MOORE 103(a) Florek & Endres PLLC EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT

See also Monarch Knitting Machinery v. Sulzer Morat GMBH, 139 F.3d 877, 884 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The relevant secondary consideration is ‘long-felt but unsolved need,’ not long-felt need in isolation.”).

2629 Ex Parte Kuroki 10/572,044 ZECHER 102(b)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER STEINBERG, JEFFREY S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Swaine et al 10/992,450 HUGHES 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, THIEN MINH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Schmid 10/350,239 BAHR 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER LOWE, MICHAEL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Boswinkel et al 12/002,914 STAICOVICI 112(2)/102(b) Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, SCOTT A

3732 Ex Parte Szymaitis 11/511,052 KAUFFMAN 112(1) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER ROSEN, ERIC J

see also Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say [‘]here is my invention.[’] In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”).

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . .2163, 2163.05

bush, rishoi, young, ariad, turbocare, purdue pharma

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Jansen et al 11/185,527 KATZ 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/754,994 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER CONLON, MARISA

3682 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11/294,459 NAPPI 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Trivedi et al 10/097,868 WINSOR 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

Appellants’ argument relies on the order in which the references were discussed, which is “of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition,” In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961), and is unpersuasive.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Stookey et al 11/617,103 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Oda et al 11/220,402 SCHAFER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Tracht 10/904,845 BARRETT 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER TO, TOAN C

3653 Ex Parte Kitching et al 10/758,065 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

See In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952) (“there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works” (citations omitted)).
...
In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935) (where a claim to a machine for making concrete beams was not patentable over the prior art, recitation in the body of the claim of the material worked upon, a concrete beam, did not lend patentability to that claim).

Young, In re, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115
3662 Ex Parte Mandel 10/367,027 HORNER 103(a) Yaron Nahum Mandel EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

3738 Ex Parte Aram et al 11/171,180 PRATS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“We now reaffirm that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement . . . .”) (emphasis added).

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):

The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.

It is well settled, however, that “[i]n order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6130931 et al Ex parte ELISABETH KATZ and INDUTCH PROCESS CONTROLS, INC. 90/010,580 09/156,078 EASTHOM 103(a) STOCKWELL & SMEDLEY, PSC EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER HO, ALLEN C

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3729 Ex Parte 6615485 et al Inter Partes FORMFACTOR, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. PHICOM CORPORATION Requestor, Respondent 95/000,358 10/034,543 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER ARBES, CARL J

arkley, purdue pharma, ariad

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Thomsen et al 11/583,135 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, JUN

Anticipation does not, however, lie where it is necessary to pick and choose among various disclosures to find a description of the later-claimed invention. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88 (CCPA 1972)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Loda 10/082,958 SIU 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Tysoe et al 10/672,623 PAK 102(e) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER LE, HOA T

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Creamer et al 10/740,701 HOFF 103(a) International Business Machines Corporation CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC

2618 Ex Parte Martino 10/947,853 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(1)/103(a) Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc EXAMINER NGUYEN, SIMON

"[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc. 230 F.3d 1320, 1326 (2000) Rather the specification must provide some guides or "blade marks" that disclose the claimed invention "specifically, as something applicants actually invented." Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . .2163, 2163.05 AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Antrim et al 11/184,989 MILLS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D

1627 Ex Parte Salamone et al 11/391,060 ADAMS 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER HUANG, GIGI GEORGIANA

1643 Ex Parte Swetledge 11/493,651 ADAMS 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER HARRIS, ALANA M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Deaton 10/949,041 DANG 102(b) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S

2188 Ex Parte Beuten et al 10/633,113 POTHIER 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Foo et al 11/018,264 RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER STREGE, JOHN B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Aufderheide et al 10/686,141 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER RUDE, TIMOTHY L

2885 Ex Parte Cleaver et al 10/771,174 KOHUT 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND
REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Verdon et al 11/424,046 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) GRIFFIN & SZIPL, PC EXAMINER COLLINS, JASON M

NEW

REVERSED

2444 Ex Parte Loda 10/082,958 SIU 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2451 Ex Parte Nirkhe et al 10/017,469 DIXON 103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

2617 Ex Parte AVID IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 90/008,702 5,499,017 SIU dissent TORCZON 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner DLA PIPER US LLP Third Party Requesters Marger Johnson & McCollom PC EXAMINER PEIKARI, BEHZAD original EXAMINER SWANN III, GLEN R

AFFIRMED

1638 Ex Parte Abad et al 11/982,700 GRIMES 102(b)/102(e)/112(1) Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Monsanto EXAMINER KUMAR, VINOD

1762 Ex Parte Correll et al 11/114,336 GARRIS 102(b) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

3627 Ex Parte Emde et al 11/323,954 DESHPANDE 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

2432 Ex Parte Hori 09/947,547 NAPPI 102(e) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2432 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/128,839 SMITH 103(a) EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO

purdue pharma,

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Marcjan et al 10/403,063 COURTENAY 103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lee 10/928,806 SCHEINER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER WHITEMAN, BRIAN A 

"In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention. See id. 

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05