SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Monday, December 14, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Blonder et al ADAMS 103(a) MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP

Ex Parte Hunt GRIMES 103(a) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC.

“Mere improvement in properties does not always suffice to show unexpected results. In our view, however, when an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results . . . and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kawakami et al WARREN 102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Ex Parte Rose et al KIMLIN 103(c) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barsness et al SIU 103(a) IBM CORPORATION

Ex Parte Jones et al HUGHES 103(a) Mueller and Smith, LPA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Sato BAUMEISTER 102(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Rogers et al McCOLLUM 103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Ex Parte Toback O’NEILL 103(a) ALIX YALE & RISTAS LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kolovson THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3600
Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fine et al CRAWFORD 101/102(e)/103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler

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.
In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974).

Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03, 2124