lamberti, mayo, fort properties, tanczyn

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2629 Ex Parte Jeong 10/930,949 WINSOR 103(a) 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC CHOW, YUK

3763 Ex Parte Nyhart 11/931,729 GREEN 103(a) 103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

[A] reference disclosure is not limited only to its preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).

Lamberti, In re, 545 F.2d 747, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.01

AFFIRMED

1733 Ex Parte Mercuri 11/201,354 BEST 103(a) WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

1761 Ex Parte Leskowicz et al 10/822,301 OBERMANN 103(a) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. DOUYON, LORNA M

3742 Ex Parte Saunders 10/939,280 LEE 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

3761 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/298,132 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3762 Ex Parte Whitehurst et al 10/178,011 GREEN 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION DIETRICH, JOSEPH M

3766 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11/057,290 FREDMAN concurring ADAMS 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HELLER, TAMMIE K

Cf. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1295 (2012) ("At the time the discoveries embodied in the patents were made, scientists already understood that the levels in a patient's blood of certain metabolites ... were correlated with the likelihood that a particular dosage of a thiopurine drug could cause harm or prove ineffective.")

Cf. Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("like the invention in Bilski, claims 1-31 of the '788 patent disclose an investment tool, particularly a real estate investement tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges of property.  This is an abstract concept.")

REHEARING
 
DENIED
 
2615 Ex parte HOLLIS MATTHEW TAPP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,848 5,657,076 08/404,114 SIU 112(1) DOCKET CLERK BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original DIN, LUANNE PAN
 
In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 832 (C.C.P.A 1965), “[i]t does not appear to us logical that one should be permitted to dissect the ‘invention’ . . . into several parts and then say because he has invented one such part prior to a reference disclosing that part that he has also invented the entire combination prior to that reference. . . .”
 
Tanczyn, In re, 347 F.2d 830, 146 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.02