vas-cath, lukach

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte ENGH-HALSTVEDT et al 13459347 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. LI, SIDNEY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Pan et al 13672117 - (D) OWENS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Boudreaux et al 13232401 - (D) HORNER 103 FROST BROWN TODD LLC LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

3744 Ex Parte Globerman et al 11561969 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP CRENSHAW, HENRY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Potineni et al 13415562 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS GAO, JING

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Goldenberg et al 13617059 - (D) LaVIER 112(1) 112(1)/102/103/double patenting Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP SCHWADRON, RONALD B

There is a “subtle distinction between a written description adequate to supports claim under § 112 and a written description sufficient to anticipate its subject matter under § 102(b).” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To wit, “the description of a single embodiment of broadly claimed subject matter constitutes a description of the invention for anticipation purposes” even if “the same information in a specification might not alone be enough to provide a description of that invention for purposes of adequate disclosure.” Id. (quoting In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 970 (CCPA 1971)).

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

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) 211.05 , 2152.02(b) , 2163 , 2163.05

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte NISHIKAWA et al 13630436 - (D) HEANEY 103 BGL WHATLEY, BENJAMIN R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Fischer 14097290 - (D) HOWARD 102/103 TERADATA US, INC. CHU, GABRIEL L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Bastide et al 13900238 - (D) CUTITTA 103/double patenting Fabian Vancot IBM CORPORATION NGANKAM, PATRICK F

2454 Ex Parte Bastide et al 13898342 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Fabian Vancot IBM CORPORATION NGANKAM, PATRICK F

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Luce 13229263 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 101/102 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP PAULSON, SHEETAL R.

3626 Ex Parte VAN ARKEL et al 13536489 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 VERIZON PAULS, JOHN A

3632 Ex Parte Duperron 14247569 - (D) DIXON 103 Endurance Law Group, PLC MARSH, STEVEN M

3661 Ex Parte Bertosa et al 13872743 - (D) DIXON 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP KONG, SZE-HON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Middleton 13659625 - (D) JESCHKE 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP JELLETT, MATTHEW WILLIAM

3761 Ex Parte Shao et al 13229195 - (D) HORNER 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

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

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

eli lilly2, vas-cath

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte de Leon et al 11563377 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. RIEGLER, PATRICK F

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Moroney et al 10770250 - (D) FREDMAN 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP MILIA, MARK R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Green 11478389 - (D) HOELTER 103 KIM, KYUNG J KIM, KYUNG J

3684 Ex Parte Byers 12191050 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk CASEY, ALEXIS M

3686 Ex Parte Brown 11509337 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1) Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. PAULS, JOHN A

Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566(Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, an applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64.

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) , 2111.03, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03
HARMON 5: 149, 158, 163, 173, 183; 6: 168; 8: 228; 10: 265; 12: 189, 197; 19: 400; 21: 153
DONNER 1: 418; 9: 294, 296, 444, 511-14, 530-32; 10: 985

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1504.20, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181
HARMON 3: 73; 5: 14, 141, 153, 156, 161, 165; 11: 219; 20: 113, 178, 302
DONNER 9: 2, 368, 369, 388-90, 407, 496, 604, 610; 10: 48; 12: 109; 13: 126

vas-cath, wang

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Czarnowski et al 11888826 - (D) CALVE 112(1) Joseph E. Mueth Law Corporation SWINEHART, EDWIN L

Under proper circumstances, drawings alone may provide a written description of an invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 866 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (drawings provided substantial evidence of disclosure of leadless SIMMs).

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20,  2161,  2161.01,  2163,  2163.02,  2164, 2181

Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 26 USPQ2d 1767 (Fed. Cir. 1993)  2164.01,  2163,  2164.06,  2164.06(b)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Vecerina et al 11101154 - (D) TARTAL 102/103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3773 Ex Parte Dreyfuss et al 11097180 - (D) GRIMES 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP DORNBUSCH, DIANNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Imielinski 11233745 - (D) McKONE 102/103 De Klerk & Lundmark YEN, SYLING

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Bothe et al 10543645 - (D) JEFFERY 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIRMA, FEKADESELASS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ramirez et al 11746939 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP MUSLEH, MOHAMAD A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Schrader 11737405 - (D) CAPP 102/103 WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. HAYES, KRISTEN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Tran et al 11400595 - (D) GRIMES 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP BUI, VY Q

3781 Ex Parte Huang et al 11894140 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY WEAVER, SUE A

umbarger, ratti, union oil, vas-cath

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Huebner et al 12074169 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. NAGPAUL, JYOTI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Diez et al 11630408 - (D) HORNER 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. LEE, GILBERT Y

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Grove et al 10843636 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 US ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Immordino et al 11639793 - (D) KRATZ 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. BARCENA, CARLOS

1743 Ex Parte Knobel 10519292 - (D) GARRIS 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. BODAWALA, DIMPLE N

1779 Ex Parte Nunes et al 11165474 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

However, it has been established that the claim need not use the same words as the specification, but rather it is enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We, therefore, conclude Appellants’ Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants were in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1504.20, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chidlovskii et al 11170542 - (D) SIU 101/103 FAY SHARPE LLP PAULA, CESAR B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Skraba et al 11152244 - (D) ZECHER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT FAN, HUA

2491 Ex Parte Fineberg 10121188 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Moulin et al 11662106 - (D) HORNER 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor&Zafman LLP SINGH, SUNIL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Rothschild 10850993 - (D) HORNER 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIM, SENG HENG

The difference between using ROM to store a fixed memory of graphics to be displayed by the gaming machine versus downloading the graphics to be displayed on the gaming machine from a remote location (e.g., server) does not affect the overall principle of operation of Ozaki’s gaming machine. See In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31 (CCPA 1969) (finding In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before.”).

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

3766 Ex Parte Daly 11192014 - (D) CALVE 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
 
REHEARING  

DENIED  
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Harris 10216268 - (D) THOMAS 102 CURTIS, NEIL & ELWOOD, LLC CHEN, TE Y

vas-cath, ruschig, sud-chemie

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Casey et al 11702895 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP KETTER, JAMES S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11793847 - (D) TORCZON 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. LEE, REBECCA Y

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Bryant et al 11278829 - (D) DILLON 103 IBM CORPORATION GUPTA, MUKTESH G

2492 Ex Parte Grebus et al 11013197 - (D) HOMERE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RAHIM, MONJUR

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Fisher et al 09781917 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 Gregory J. Koerner Redwood Patent Law JERABEK, KELLY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Nastacio 10845964 - (D) KIM 102/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy JEANTY, ROMAIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Zhao-Wilson et al 11378032 - (D) PRATS 112(1) 112(1)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MARTINELL, JAMES

The written description requirement obliges an applicant to “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. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Thus, where an applicant had, by amendment, inserted into an application a claim to a specific chemical compound encompassed by the specification’s generic disclosure, our reviewing court’s predecessor found that the specification failed to describe the compound as being part of the invention because the specification lacked sufficient “blaze marks” to guide a skilled practitioner to the claimed compound from the broader disclosure. In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967).

Consistent with the blaze marks directive, in addressing the issue of incorporation by reference, the Federal Circuit has stated that the “host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

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

Ruschig, In re, 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Jung et al 09775315 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP ANTHONY, JULIAN

In addition, we emphasize that, although secondary considerations such as unexpected results must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion. See Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]vidence of unexpected results and other secondary considerations will not necessarily overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness”);

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 09838205 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Cao 10852280 - (D) FRAHM 103 Brake Hughes PLC C/O Portfolio IP LAM, TUAN THIEU

2874 Ex Parte Stingl et al 12220784 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 CORNING INCORPORATED TRAN, HOANG Q

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gilder et al  11217985 - (D)  BAHR 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PRONE, JASON D

3736 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11295247 - (D) MILLS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FOREMAN, JONATHAN M

3739 Ex Parte Eggleston 11242475 - (D) FREDMAN 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP GOOD, SAMANTHA M

3761 Ex Parte Qin et al  11640042 - (D)  JENKS 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MARCETICH, ADAM M

3762 Ex Parte Yu et al 11113809 - (D) MILLS 112(2)/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. GETZOW, SCOTT M