REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Sang et al 10589199 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP SAHA, BIJAY S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Yun 11672571 - (D) ADAMS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Andrews Kurth LLP SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M
3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 11965883 - (D) JESCHKE 103 112(1) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Henning et al 12571493 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG ZIMMER, MARC S
1765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12380892 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated SALAMON, PETER A
“In order to anticipate, a prior art disclosure must also be enabling, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. The standard for enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). While section 112 states that the specification must enable one skilled in the art to ‘use’ the invention, “section 102 makes no such requirement as to an anticipatory disclosure . . . . Rather, anticipation only requires that those suggestions be enabled to one of skill in the art.” “Whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon [the] underlying factual findings.” Id (internal citations omitted.)
It has also been held that “proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.” Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Rather, the proper issue is whether the . . . patent is enabling in the sense that it describes the claimed invention sufficiently to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention.” Id. at 1383.
Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed Cir. 2006) 2121 , 2122 , 2152.02(b)
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Kano et al 11881479 - (D) BOUCHER 102/103 Anne Vachon Dougherty CALLE, ANGEL J
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte Hunt et al 12138917 - (D) BEAMER 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON QUIETT, CARRAMAH J
2666 Ex Parte Hohmann et al 10490453 - (D) FRAHM 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI
See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Claim 1 does not contain limitations requiring the reduction of wiring between the display and display controller on a smart card. In fact, claim 1 does not recite any wiring at all.
Hiniker Co., In re, 150 F.3d 1362, 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2103 , 2242 , 2258 , 2258.01 , 2642
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Kulas 12580236 - (D) GARRIS 102 CHARLES J. KULAS MAI, HUY KIM
