alza, strahilevitz, wands

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Kritzer 12872350 - (D) BEST 103 41.50 112(2) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Powell et al 11554832 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 VERIZON BEHESHTI SHIRAZI, SAYED ARESH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Schlienger et al 11343857 - (D) WIEKER 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COTRONEO, STEVEN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte McCall et al 10956426 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 41.50 112(2) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN c/o CPA Global JOSEPH, JAISON

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte PARTHASARATHY et al 12392126 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, CEDRIC D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Sprung 12477284 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

2471 Ex Parte ASHWOOD-SMITH et al 12169189 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHOU, ALBERT T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Das et al 11095018 - (D) SHAW 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent JAIN, ANKUR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin 12215628 - (D) HOUSEL 112(1) 112(2) WALLACE W. LIN JUNG, MICHAEL

Although extrinsic evidence will not substitute for a basic enabling disclosure, it can be used to show what was well known in the art or prove that undue experimentation was not required. See ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“the rule that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art is merely a rule of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure.”); In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (finding that the appellant properly relied on literature citations to establish both the level of ordinary skill in the art and the fact that the techniques necessary to practice his invention were known in the art.); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding that declaratory evidence showing experimentation was not undue effectively rebutted the examiner’s enablement challenge).

ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 94 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2161.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) ,   706.03(b) ,   2161.01 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.06 ,   2164.06(b)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Kania et al 13041380 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1) 103 Green Patent Law NGUYEN, SON T

wright3, wands, strahilevitz, amgen1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Van Ingen Schenau et al 12000190 - (D) SMITH 112(1) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Kuo 12420827 - (D) PYONIN 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. DUFFY, JAMES P

2485 Ex Parte Moore et al 13185395 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/102/103 Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A. VAS/Orbital ATK, Inc. LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Pridmore et al 11996230 - (D) BOUDREAU 102/103 41.50 112(2) NIXON PEABODY, LLP ZEWARI, SAYED T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 11684347 - (D) HANLON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) NADAV, ORI

2822 Ex Parte Vaartstra 11493967 - (D) TIMM 112(1)/103 Wells St. John P.S. PATTON, PAUL E

“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The court in Wands set forth a number of factors to consider, i.e., (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Id. Although the Examiner need not review all the Wands factors as they are illustrative, not mandatory, the Examiner must “advance acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement.” In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232 (CCPA 1982); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Here, the only evidence the Examiner relies upon is the breath of the claim as encompassing impossible or at least improbable chemical entities. But a statement that the claims are broad and encompass inoperative embodiments does not establish lack of enablement unless it is clear that the
experimentation needed to arrive at the usable zirconium/hafnium silicates within the formula was more than routine. The Examiner has not established that the experimentation needed was not routine, but undue.

We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack of enablement.

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2107.01 ,   2161.01 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.04 ,   2164.05(a) ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) ,   706.03(b) ,   2161.01 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.06 ,   2164.06(b)

Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 Fed. Cir. 1991) 2138 ,   2138.04 ,   2143.02 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,   2164.08 ,   2165.04 ,   2173.05(b) ,   2411.01

2842 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12433270 - (D) KATZ 102 41.50 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP GOOGLE O NEILL, PATRICK

2862 Ex Parte Demos 13325695 - (D) SHAW 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Horn et al 10939524 - (D) LORIN 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP JASMIN, LYNDA C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Winter 11869040 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY PRAGER, JESSE M

3748 Ex Parte Crawley et al 11871701 - (D) BROWN 102 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) TRAN, DIEM T

AFFIRMED–IN–PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 12747826 - (D) JENKS 103 103 J-TEK LAW PLLC GALISTEO GONZALEZ, ANTONIO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Druskin et al 12356562 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 103 WesternGeco L.L.C. SAXENA, AKASH

2172 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11961352 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102/103 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WRIGHT, ELIZABETH G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Houck et al 11343172 - (D) WARREN 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ROLLAND, ALEX A

1726 Ex Parte Noda et al 12808742 - (D) ROESEL 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY GRESO, AARON J

1731 Ex Parte Weibel 12307893 - (D) KRATZ 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA HIJJI, KARAM Y

1767 Ex Parte Shimono et al 11578066 - (D) HOUSEL 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

1772 Ex Parte LAURITZEN et al 12542400 - (D) SMITH 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY DANG, THUAN D

1789 Ex Parte Snider et al 11449265 - (D) GARRIS 103 Polymer Group, Inc. MATZEK, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Pena et al 11318802 - (D) KINDER 102 112(2)/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG COYER, RYAN D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Levi 12361279 - (D) ZADO 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH

2454 Ex Parte HUNG et al 12715559 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP- BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED LIN, WEN TAI

2476 Ex Parte WANG et al 11428964 - (D) SHIANG 103 Davidson Sheehan LLP Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. SLOMS, NICHOLAS

2477 Ex Parte Soni et al 11656861 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems YOUNG, STEVE R

2485 Ex Parte Thoreau et al 12223887 - (D) BRANCH 103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. TORRENTE, RICHARD T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Lee et al 10911542 - (D) McMILLIN 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ZUBAJLO, JENNIFER L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Florin et al 12028884 - (D) SMITH 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PURINTON, BROOKE J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Boss et al 10726186 - (D) BROWN 103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP DURAN, ARTHUR D

3626 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12286751 - (D) BARRETT 101 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC LUBIN, VALERIE

3626 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12287686 - (D) BARRETT 101 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC LUBIN, VALERIE

3657 Ex Parte Von Hayn et al 11997774 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. SAHNI, VISHAL R

3671 Ex Parte MAHAL et al 12892945 - (D) KERINS 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP HARTMANN, GARY S

3681 Ex Parte Marhoefer 13506870 - (D) BROWN 102 101 41.50 112(2) L. Joseph Maroefer BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

3685 Ex Parte Perttila et al 10452865 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 12088022 - (D) KERINS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BRADFORD, JONATHAN

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. Requester and Appellant v. NUVASIVE, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7905840 et al 10/967,668 95001890 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.77(b) 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Requester and Cross Appellant v. MONSANTO COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,057,835 et al 11/267,540 95002309 - (D) GUEST 102/103 DENTONS US LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Dickstein Shapiro, LLP DIAMOND, ALAN D original PADEN, CAROLYN A

REHEARING

DENIED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al 07/712,359 95002082 - (D) MARTIN NGHIEM, MICHAEL P Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

DENIED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,167,938 B1 et al 95002083 - (D) MARTIN FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

minerals, wands, vaeck, wertheim

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Kaijima et al 12254697 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy LY, ANH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Sebire et al 11227923 - (D) LaVIER 103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Corporation IRACE, MICHAEL

2656 Ex Parte Green 11365081 - (D) SAADAT 103 Wolfe-SBMC FLANDERS, ANDREW C

2681 Ex Parte Doan et al 12202477 - (D) SHIANG 103 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON LU, SHIRLEY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Delafoy et al 11628222 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion that may be reached by weighing the following factual considerations: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Wands at 737.

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) ,   706.03(b) ,   2161.01 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.06 ,   2164.06(b)

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01 ,   2144.08 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(c) ,   2164.03 ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08
...
New Grounds of Rejection
Written Description: Claims 43, 47–65, and 67–69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. ...

As correctly noted by the Examiner, independent claim 43 recites the open ended limitations of “greater than 430 W/cm” and “greater than 180 W/cm.” See Ans. 17. These limitations “do not meet the written description requirement because the phrase ‘at least’ ha[s] no upper limit and cause[s] the claim to read literally on [an] embodiment outside of” the disclosed range of values. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) 706.03(o) ,   1302.01 ,   2144.05 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.04 ,   2163.05

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Vargo et al 12785136 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O Conley Rose, P.C. ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Choudhury et al 12134255 - (D) HUME 101/103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2193 Ex Parte Kapoor et al 11420375 - (D) HORVATH 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Jensen et al 12084786 - (D) HANLON 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC FIGUEROA, FELIX O

2894 Ex Parte Czubatyj et al 11743459 - (D) HANLON 102/103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP LAURENZI, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Caminade 12036582 - (D) GREENHUT 103 HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. KELLEHER, WILLIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,221,387 et al 10/444,261 95001958 - (D) BRANCH 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP SECTION  HOTALING, JOHN M original RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

minerals, wands, bush, EMI, raytheon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P

3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W

3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Tantivy Communications, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner TESCO CORPORATION
95/001,113 7,048,050 SONG 102/103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester : BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLPEXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 90/008,990 6,151,332 TURNER 103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Sigler et al 11/155,180 SMITH Concurring PAK 102(b)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Whaley 11/127,049 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Docket Clerk Dallas TX EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Mastin Crosbie et al 09/793,355 MacDONALD 102(e) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Medendorp 11/708,818 DROESCH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CROWE, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Howell 11/634,454 HORNER 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3739 Ex Parte Prabhu et al 09/891,773 BAHR 102(e) Carestream Health, Inc. EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S

3748 Ex Parte Lifson 11/544,403 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

3774 Ex Parte Fariabi 10/750,079 HOELTER 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Trese et al 11/234,518 DELMENDO 101/112(1)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “When a claim itself recites incorrect science in one limitation, the entire claim is invalid, regardless of the combinations of the other limitations recited in the claim.” EMI, 268 F.3d at 1349.

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08
REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/429,507 GRIMES Technology Advancement Labs LLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
NEW

REVERSED

3684 Ex Parte Foy et al 11/226,463 DESHPANDE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

1765 Ex Parte Hulse et al 11/955,475 ROBERTSON 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1645 Ex Parte Miller 10/470,797 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

3691 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/169,501 CRAWFORD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ONYEZIA, CHUKS N

3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/388,162 FISCHETTI 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

3624 Ex Parte Santos et al 10/378,872 MOHANTY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

1621 Ex Parte STAUFFER 12/632,840 ADAMS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER PARSA, JAFAR F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2114 Ex Parte JOHANSSON et al 11/834,731 POTHIER 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

3749 Ex Parte Schnell et al 10/413,018 BROWN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D

2453 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/455,037 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

AFFIRMED

2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2178 Ex Parte Lu et al 10/668,399 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

3632 Ex Parte MATIAS 11/735,523 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PERRY + CURRIER INC. EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

2166 Ex Parte Raley et al 11/141,229 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2156 Ex Parte Recio et al 11/304,954 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

3774 Ex Parte Reed et al 11/252,169 HORNER 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

3715 Ex Parte Seelig et al 09/791,463 BROWN 102(e) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER MOSSER, KATHLEEN MICHELE

3644 Ex Parte Simoni 11/039,210 STAICOVICI 103(a) JACQUELYN R. SIMONI EXAMINER ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3667 Ex Parte Turgeon 10/086,793 LORIN 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

REHEARING

DENIED
2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

Wednesday December 8, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bruno et al 11/058,054 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a) WINSTEAD PC EXAMINER CHONG, KIMBERLY

Kubin stated that

[t]o differentiate between proper and improper applications of ‘obvious to try,’ this court outlined two classes of situations where ‘obvious to try’ is erroneously equated with obviousness under § 103. In the first class of cases, what would have been ‘obvious to try’ would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.

In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Harrison et al 10/774,616 McCARTHY BARRETT PATE III 102(b) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Murray et al 11/383,201 SILVERBERG BARRETT KERINS 102(b)/103(a)
WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

3741 Ex Parte Tiemann et al 10/524,523 PATE III HORNER STAICOVICI 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

However, the claimed invention “must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/301,918 SAADAT EASTHOM KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nevin 11/318,202 HORNER KERINS MCCARTHY 103(a) EXAMINER ROBINSON, DANIEL LEON EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ
DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J

“References relied upon to support a rejection under 35 USC 103 must provide an enabling disclosure, i.e., they must place the claimed invention in the possession of the public.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314
(CCPA 1979).

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09

“Thus, upon careful reconsideration it is our view that if the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. [footnote omitted].” In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).

Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02,2144.09, 2145

AFFIRMED

3634 Ex Parte Barkman et al 11/071,813 SILVERBERG EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
1633 Ex Parte Gromeier et al 10/304,059 PRATS EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M
3732 Ex Parte Kuo 10/894,555 FREDMAN EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
2839 Ex Parte Lavie 10/644,416 SAADAT EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
3774 Ex Parte Lukic 10/101,378 MILLS EXAMINER STEWART, ALVIN J
3724 Ex Parte Pennell et al 11/524,148 STAICOVICI EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM
2872 Ex Parte Piehl et al 11/284,225 MacDONALD EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3673 Ex Parte Ricketts 11/343438 SILVERBERG EXAMINER CONLEY, FREDRICK C

REHEARING

DENIED

2445 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10/635,586 LUCAS EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D