REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Kritzer 12872350 - (D) BEST 103 41.50 112(2) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Powell et al 11554832 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 VERIZON BEHESHTI SHIRAZI, SAYED ARESH
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Schlienger et al 11343857 - (D) WIEKER 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COTRONEO, STEVEN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte McCall et al 10956426 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 41.50 112(2) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN c/o CPA Global JOSEPH, JAISON
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte PARTHASARATHY et al 12392126 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, CEDRIC D
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Sprung 12477284 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP MADAMBA, GLENFORD J
2471 Ex Parte ASHWOOD-SMITH et al 12169189 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHOU, ALBERT T
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Das et al 11095018 - (D) SHAW 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent JAIN, ANKUR
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin 12215628 - (D) HOUSEL 112(1) 112(2) WALLACE W. LIN JUNG, MICHAEL
Although extrinsic evidence will not substitute for a basic enabling disclosure, it can be used to show what was well known in the art or prove that undue experimentation was not required. See ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“the rule that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art is merely a rule of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure.”); In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (finding that the appellant properly relied on literature citations to establish both the level of ordinary skill in the art and the fact that the techniques necessary to practice his invention were known in the art.); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding that declaratory evidence showing experimentation was not undue effectively rebutted the examiner’s enablement challenge).
ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 94 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2161.01
Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) , 706.03(b) , 2161.01 , 2164.01 , 2164.01(a) , 2164.06 , 2164.06(b)
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Kania et al 13041380 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1) 103 Green Patent Law NGUYEN, SON T
