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

reiffin, rasmussen

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Stacey et al 10/539,286 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H
1796 Ex Parte Okabe et al 10/739,122 HASTINGS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

Whether the inventor has provided adequate written description, either explicitly or inherently, must be determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because “that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment.” In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id.

Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2169 Ex Parte Burger et al 10/675,266 HOMERE 103(a) Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation EXAMINERBETIT, JACOB F
2187 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/881,057 JEFFERY 102(b) Kenton R. Mullins Stout , Uxa, Buyan & Mullins, LLP EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Maier et al 10/838,406 WINSOR 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOA CAO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Lyons 10/704,678 ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/102(e) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C
2482 Ex Parte Liu 10/603,428 HOFF 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Shen 11/477,203 KIM 101/112(2)/103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software2162 Ex Parte Shahabi et al 10/310,667 STEPHENS 102(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) EXAMINER LY, ANH
2600 Communications2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 10/899,865 HAHN 101/102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HSU, JONI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3748 Ex Parte Knetsch et al 10/835,487 GREENHUT 103(a) ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER TRAN, DIEM T
3782 Ex Parte Daves 10/986,484 SPAHN 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER SKURDAL, COREY NELSON

NEW

REVERSED

2179 Ex Parte Atkins 10/675,823 DIXON 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

3768 Ex Parte Byron 10/559,213 STAICOVICI 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

2163 Ex Parte Cookson et al 10/748,442 BARRY 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

3711 Ex Parte Gamble 11/398,408 ASTORINO 103(a) DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T

3665 Ex Parte Pando 11/026,948 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER ALSOMIRI, ISAM A

AFFIRMED

1716 Ex Parte Hichri et al 11/160,671 HANLON 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

2611 Ex Parte Trutna et al 10/733,675 FRAHM 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER AGHDAM, FRESHTEH N

2114 Ex Parte Vecoven 10/417,812 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER SCHELL, JOSEPH O

3767 Ex Parte Woodburn et al 11/368,131 HOELTER 103(a) McKeon Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[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. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. 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. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., 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)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

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

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163