REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Beaurain et al 10498234 - (D) SHAH 102/103 Denko Coburn Lauff LLP BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Roth 12004172 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 THE LAW OFFICES OF DONNA L. ANGOTTI EBNER, KATY MEYER
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether enablement is a requirement for a reference cited in an obviousness rejection and determined the following:
While a reference must enable someone to practice the invention in order to anticipate under §102(b), a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103. Reading & Bates Constr. Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 652, 223 USPQ 1168, 1173 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (reference that lacks enabling disclosure is not anticipating, but “itself may qualify as a prior art reference under § 103, but only for what is disclosed in it” (emphasis in original)); see Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed.Cir. 1989) (“[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches”).
Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Atala et al 11083602 - (D) MILLS 103 41.50 103 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP SCHLIENTZ, LEAH H
1618 Ex Parte Draper 11684666 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Blue Filament Law VU, JAKE MINH
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Tienor 12032868 - (D) SMITH 103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. WOODALL, MARK
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Glomset et al 12639435 - (D) SMEGAL 103 The BOC Group, Inc. EVANS, EBONY E
