REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Ohira 11/318,536 KRATZ 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MAZUMDAR, SONYA

1786 Ex Parte Reichmann et al 10/734,006 KRATZ 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D

1784 Ex Parte Dobesberger et al 11/589,728 GAUDETTE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

1795 Ex Parte Ahluwalia 11/018,724 WARREN 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P. EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

See, e.g., In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("hindsight" is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained);

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 1216.01

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Chen 10/612,456 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) DUKE W. YEE, YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER KE, PENG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Levy et al 10/410,941 HOMERE 103(a) SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C

2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,224 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Nishimura 10/959,165 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC EXAMINER HAN, JASON

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Fitch 10/252,478 STAICOVICI 103(a) SNELL & WILMER LLP (OC) EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Weber 10/487,194 McCARTHY 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

REXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2664 Ex parte ENTERASYS NETWORKS, INC., Appellant 90/008,552 6,560,236 SIU 112(1)/305/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TRACY W. DRUCE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER PATEL, AJIT

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2664 Ex parte ENTERASYS NETWORKS, INC., Appellant 90/008,558 6,539,022 SIU 305/102(b)/102(e) PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC. EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER YAO, KWANG BIN

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex parte MICROSOFT CORPORATION 90/009,078 6,466,238 SIU 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES V. COSTIGAN HEDMAN & COSTIGAN PC EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lewandowski et al 10/172,471 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO

“The written description requirement . . . ensures that when a patent claims a genus by its function or result, the specification recites sufficient materials to accomplish that function-a problem that is particularly acute in the biological arts.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Thus, a “sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Id. at 1350 (quoting Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
119 F.3d 1559, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

The Federal Circuit has “set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure [supporting generic claims], including ‘the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.’” Id. at 1351 (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

Thus, “the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice; a constructive reduction to practice that in a definite way identifies the claimed invention can satisfy the written description requirement.” Id. at 1352 (citing Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2106, 2111.03, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163

1613 Ex Parte Mantelle et al 11/812,198 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Kung 10/834,755 MacDONALD 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE, L.L.P. EXAMINER SAYADIAN, HRAYR

2832 Ex Parte Killion et al 10/901,581 MacDONALD 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PHILLIPS, FORREST M

2894 Ex Parte Backlund 10/509,981 MacDONALD 102(e) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER GRAYBILL, DAVID E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/623,528 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J