packard, ariad, vas-cath, ralston

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10573373 - (D) COTTA 103 Parker Highlander PLLC PARAD, DENNIS J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Abramov et al 13182029 - (D) NAGUMO 112(2)/103 CORNING INCORPORATED HOFFMANN, JOHN M

The Federal Circuit has explained that indefiniteness, as a subset of claim construction, is a question of law. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In particular, the court held, “[a]s the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.” Id.

Packard, In re, 751 F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2173.02 , 2173.05(a) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.06

1793 Ex Parte van Os et al 12364470 - (D) OWENS 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. TURNER, FELICIA C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Spakevicius et al 13318591 - (D) SHAW 103 41.50 103 Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF TILLERY, RASHAWN N

2477 Ex Parte Aghili et al 12241256 - (D) BARRY 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. ESMAEILIAN, MAJID

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Azemati et al 13246779 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Maschoff Brennan LAMBERT, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte FERNANDO et al 12648903 - (D) ROSS 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA COLE, ELIZABETH M

1791 Ex Parte Gutknecht et al 13341563 - (D) KENNEDY 103 JAY BROWN LAW FIRM GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

2174 Ex Parte Kauranen 13575305 - (D) ENGLE 102/103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy TSAI, JAMES T

2859 Ex Parte Seman et al 13587107 - (D) HASTINGS 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Kocurek 13493984 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/103 103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) PATEL, VISHAL A

The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”’  Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id.  This test “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”  Id.  “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.”  Id.  This inquiry is a question of fact.  Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc)   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2173.05(g) ,   2181

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

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2163.02

3741 Ex Parte Li et al 13431400 - (D) HORNER 112(2) 102/103 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ALSTOM MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3786 Ex Parte Feldman et al 13767350 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. DIETERLE, JENNIFER M

capon,ariad,ralston,vas-cath,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Blazewicz et al 10/402,596 KIMLIN 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LUDLOW, JAN M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/718,218 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review Ex Parte Saxe et al 10/440,988 O’NEILL 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S 

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc the scope and purpose of the written description requirement within the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court reaffirmed that the written description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement of that provision. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. , --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Further, the purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. Accordingly, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. FarMar-Co, Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The hallmark of the written description is disclosure. Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. As such, not just possession, but “‘possession as shown in the disclosure’ is a more complete formulation.” Id. Thus, the test for whether the claims are adequately described “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id. (citing Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 1575). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

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

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.02

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Motyka et al 10/828,827 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V