1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fagnani et al GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery
Ex Parte Qi et al FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.
"In order to satisfy the enablement requirement of section 112, an applicant must describe the manner of making and using the invention ‘in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art … to make and use the same ….’ 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 1." Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure
would require undue experimentation … include (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.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gibson et al SMITH 102(b) SCOTT JACOBSON, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hull et al HOFF 112(2) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
Claims must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, “[o]nly claims not amenable to construction or insolubly ambiguous are indefinite. A claim term is not indefinite just because it poses a difficult issue of claim construction.” Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, the definiteness of claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable meaning.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
BILSKI - REVERSED
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Bodin et al HOFF 101/102(a)/103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP
Computer programs and data structures are deemed "functional descriptive material," which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency held statutory) with In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim but claim to a data structure that referred to ideas reflected in nonstatutory process rather than referring to a physical arrangement of the contents of a memory held nonstatutory).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rutanen MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Haschen et al SMITH 112(2)/103(a) BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Furneaux et al BAHR 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Stapf et al WALSH 102(b)/103(a) Terrance A. Meador INCAPLAW
Ex Parte Cook et al FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH
Ex Parte Meyer et al GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
"A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971)). "Yet choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk," because where a functional limitation appears to be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the applicant can be compelled to show that it is not. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478.
