custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Murray et al 12183948 - (D) WARREN 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Riley 12213742 - (D) KAUFFMAN 101/112(2) 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP MENDIRATTA, VISHU K
3724 Ex Parte Mockli et al 11337115 - (D) BUNTING 102 112(2)/102 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM PATEL, BHARAT C
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Singh et al 12055151 - (D) PRATS 112(1) 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC GODDARD, LAURA B
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.
HARMON 5: 137, 163; 6: 173, 268; 8: 267
1644 Ex Parte Goldenberg 10002211 - (D) BONILLA 112(1) 102/103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP DAHLE, CHUN WU
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Ouvry 10239130 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP BUTLER, PATRICK NEAL
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Litwin 10176598 - (D) FETTING 102/103 THOMSON multimedia Licensing Inc. Joseph S. Tripoli ROBERTSON, DAVID
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte ELIAS et al 11549287 - (D) CHEN 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G HSU, ALPUS
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Quine 11599713 - (D) SHIANG 112(1)/112(2)/112(6)/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. ELLIS, SUEZU Y
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Rice et al 11020453 - (D) SCANLON 112(1) 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO. AMERICAS Requester, Respondent v. LML PATENT CORP. Patent Owner, Appellant 95000545 RE40220 10/889,639 SONG 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP TON, MY TRANG original FRECH, KARL D
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3506 THE CHARLES MACHINE WORKS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERMEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1578 5,490,569 08/215,649 MOORE SJ doctrine of equivalents SJ doctrine of equivalents Tomlinson Rust McKinstry Grable; Merchant & Gould P.C. BAGNELL, DAVID J
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 1615 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., AND YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SANDOZ, INC., AND MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN INC., AND NATCO PHARMA LTD., Defendants-Appellants, AND SANDOZ INTERNATIONAL GMBH, AND NOVARTIS AG, Defendants. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570 5,800,808 5,981,589 6,048,898 6,054,430 6,342,476 6,362,161 6,620,847 6,939,539 7,199,098 08/447,146 09/032,616 09/032,334 09/032,647 09/510,141 09/510,466 10/014,477 10/615,865 11/098,432 MOORE 112(1) 112(1)/112(2)/103 Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP; Morrison & Foerster, LLP; Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP KRASS, FREDERICK F; KULKOSKY, PETER F; LEWIS, AMY A; HENLEY III, RAYMOND J
Showing posts with label turbocare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label turbocare. Show all posts
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)