REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Jansen et al 11/185,527 KATZ 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/754,994 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER CONLON, MARISA
3682 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11/294,459 NAPPI 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Trivedi et al 10/097,868 WINSOR 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S
Appellants’ argument relies on the order in which the references were discussed, which is “of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition,” In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961), and is unpersuasive.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Stookey et al 11/617,103 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Oda et al 11/220,402 SCHAFER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Tracht 10/904,845 BARRETT 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER TO, TOAN C
3653 Ex Parte Kitching et al 10/758,065 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E
See In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952) (“there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works” (citations omitted)).
...
In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935) (where a claim to a machine for making concrete beams was not patentable over the prior art, recitation in the body of the claim of the material worked upon, a concrete beam, did not lend patentability to that claim).
Young, In re, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115
3662 Ex Parte Mandel 10/367,027 HORNER 103(a) Yaron Nahum Mandel EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
3738 Ex Parte Aram et al 11/171,180 PRATS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD
See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“We now reaffirm that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement . . . .”) (emphasis added).
As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):
The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.
It is well settled, however, that “[i]n order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6130931 et al Ex parte ELISABETH KATZ and INDUTCH PROCESS CONTROLS, INC. 90/010,580 09/156,078 EASTHOM 103(a) STOCKWELL & SMEDLEY, PSC EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER HO, ALLEN C
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3729 Ex Parte 6615485 et al Inter Partes FORMFACTOR, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. PHICOM CORPORATION Requestor, Respondent 95/000,358 10/034,543 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER ARBES, CARL J
