inphi, wright2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Tang et al 13622123 - (D) SHIANG 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP TRAN, LOI H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3668 Ex Parte Seiter et al 13177277 - (D) GREENHUT 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP RAMESH, KRISHNAN

3779 Ex Parte Cooper et al 12705439 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Patent Dept. - Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. EL ALAMI, RAJAA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte DOWBEN 13604927 - (D) HEANEY 103 102/103 The Kelber Law Group HORTON, DUJUAN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Vogels et al 12460678 - (D) FLAX 112(1) TRASKBRITT, P.C. MARVICH, MARIA

A specification may satisfy the written description requirement when, at a minimum, ‘“the essence of the original disclosure’ conveys the necessary information — ‘regardless of how it’ conveys such information, and regardless of whether the disclosure’s ‘words [a]re open to different interpretation[s].’” Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 424—25 (Fed.Cir.1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Wright, In re, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2163 , 2163.03

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte GERLACH 13371987 - (D) HOUSEL 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GRUN, ROBERT J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Mockford 11977124 - (D) DANG 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Munsell et al 11828624 - (D) BENNETT 102/103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] THOMAS, JASON M

2449 Ex Parte Kuulusa 13935886 - (D) KOHUT 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. BUKHARI, SIBTE H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Deflorian et al 12600870 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP MATHEW, FENN C

3782 Ex Parte Koenigkramer 12686075 - (D) HORNER 102/103 McCarter & English LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. PASCUA, JES F

wright2, enzo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Khalsa et al 12587130 - (D) OWENS 103 Imperium Patent Works, LLP LUONG, HENRY T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte HASCHKE et al 12778597 - (D) BAHR 103 112(1) 41.50 112(2) Clark Hill PLC PASCUA, JES F

The claimed subject matter need not be described “in haec verba” in the original specification in order to satisfy the written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, “[t]he disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Wright, In re, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2163 , 2163.03

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2161.01 , 2163

wright2

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Prevost et al 10/433,857 WALSH 112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name: BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN

“When the scope of a claim has been changed by amendment in such a way as to justify an assertion that it is directed to a different invention than was the original claim, it is proper to inquire whether the newly claimed subject matter was described in the patent application when filed as the invention of the applicant.” In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1989). An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of error in the specification, but also the appropriate correction. In re Odd, 443 F.2d 1200, 1205 (CCPA 1971) (changing “nitrous” to “nitric” was not new matter under § 251).
Wright, In re, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.03
Ex Parte Vehring et al 10/855,798 WALSH 102(b)/102(e)/nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting NOVARTIS
Examiner Name: SASAN, ARADHANA

The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated ... as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458-1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2164.01, 2164.05(a)

1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,874 KIMLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
Examiner Name: WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte McCalvin 10/905,859 MEDLEY 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS
Examiner Name: ANDREWS, DAVID L
Ex Parte Corvin 09/747,040 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC
Examiner Name: FELTEN, DANIEL S
Ex Parte Fung et al 10/298,220 FETTING 103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP
Examiner Name: SHERR, CRISTINA O
Ex Parte Hertling et al 10/113,397 FETTING 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name: DAGNEW, SABA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Klann 11/143,365 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
Examiner Name: WILSON, LEE D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. SIMMONS
Examiner Name: FISCHER, ANDREW J

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Tzu et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Lay et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Banerjee et al
Ex Parte Borthakur et al
Ex Parte Brockway
Ex Parte John et al
Ex Parte Johnson
Ex Parte Kobayashi et al
Ex Parte OLIVER et al
Ex Parte Paila et al
Ex Parte Ramanujam
Ex Parte Zimmer et al
Ex Parte Zohar et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Rees

wright2

REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Sundel LORIN 101/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)/103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C.

Utility
The test for utility is whether the application shows that the invention is useful to the public as disclosed. “Simply put, to satisfy the ‘substantial’ utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “When a properly claimed invention meets at least one stated objective, utility under § 101 is clearly shown.” Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 958-59 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

The test for operability is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility. As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true. In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis added).
Definiteness
The test for compliance is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in light of the application disclosure as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).

Written Description

“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). All that is necessary to satisfy the description requirement is to show that one is “in possession” of the invention. The decision in Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) accurately states the test. One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. (“[T]he applicant must also convey 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.”) (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, see Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 . . . (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . . . . ”), the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572 (emphasis original). Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Stephenson et al GRIMES 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Mindler et al HORNER 112(1)/103(a) MARK G. BOCCHETTI EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

Written Description

The fundamental factual inquiry in determining whether a claimed invention satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The claimed subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the specification in order for that specification to satisfy the description requirement. In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973). “[T]he written description requirement is satisfied by the patentee’s disclosure of ‘such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.’” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). In deciding the issue of written description, the specification as a whole must be considered. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Mockry et al FREDMAN, WALSH Concurring in part and Dissenting in part 103(a)BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.

“By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.” PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To construe the phrase “consisting essentially of,” it is “necessary and proper to determine” the interpretation that the Specification reasonably supports. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551 (CCPA 1976).
NUIJTEN - AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Awe et al SIU 101/102(a)/102(e) IBM CORPORATION