(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E."

Transcription

1 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/ (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. HAGUE Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. BRIEF FOR APPELLEE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE RAYMOND T. CHEN Solicitor LYNNE E. PETTIGREW WILLIAM LAMARCA Associate Solicitors Office of the Solicitor Mail Stop 8 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA (571) August 24, 2012 Attorneys for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

2 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 08/24/2012 Claim on Appeal A2; A

3 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 08/24/2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS... 3 A. The Claim on Appeal and the Prosecution History Application No. 29/219,709: The Original Application Application No. 29/253,172: The Claim on Appeal... 5 B. The Examiner s Rejection... 7 C. The Board s Decision... 8 IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT V. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review...14 B. Design Patent Law...15 C. The 709 Application Fails to Provide Sufficient Written Description Support for the Claimed Design Because It Does Not Disclose the Claimed Trapezoidal Section...16 D. Owens s Additional Arguments Fail to Show Error in the Board s Decision The Rejection Is Not Inconsistent With USPTO Practice Regarding Addition of Broken Lines USPTO Practice Does Not Prevent the Use of Continuations to Claim Designs That Were Adequately Disclosed in an Earlier Design Application Owens s Argument Regarding Lukach Does Not Show Reversible Error...28 i

4 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 08/24/ The Rejection Under 103(a) Is Not Inconsistent with the Board s Finding That the Claimed Design Is Not Sufficiently Disclosed in the 709 Application...29 VI. CONCLUSION ii

5 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 08/24/2012 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Alonso, In re, 545 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Alton, In re, 76 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)... 14, 17, 21 Blum, In re, 374 F.2d 904 (CCPA 1967)... 15, 23 Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) Daniels, In re, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998)...passim Jolley, In re, 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Kotzab, In re, 217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967 (CCPA 1971)... 10, 11, 13, 28, 29, 31 Salmon, In re, 705 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1983) SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Watts, In re, 354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)... 14, 29 Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976)... 10, 22 Zahn, In re, 617 F.2d 261 (CCPA 1980)... 15, 23 iii

6 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 08/24/2012 Statutes 35 U.S.C passim 35 U.S.C passim 35 U.S.C passim 35 U.S.C Regulations 37 C.F.R , C.F.R Other MPEP , 16, 23 MPEP , 16, 23, 24 iv

7 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 08/24/2012 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES The Director is not aware of any other appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in connection with this case that has previously been before this court. The Director is also unaware of any other case pending in this or any other court that will directly affect, or be directly affected, by the Court s decision in this appeal. v

8 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 08/24/2012 I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. 120, a claim in a continuation application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a parent application only if the claimed subject matter is described in the earlier application in a matter that complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, 1. This rule applies to design patents as well as utility patents. The issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that an earlier disclosure of a full bottle design does not provide adequate written description support for a later-claimed partial bottle design, which includes a broken boundary line dividing the front panel of the full bottle to create a trapezoidal shape, altering its design in a way that was not contemplated by the inventors at the time of the earlier disclosure. If the earlier disclosure does not provide adequate written description support for the claim on appeal, and therefore the claim is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application, Owens admits that the claim on appeal is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Timothy S. Owens, Sheila M. Kelly, Robert M. Lynch, IV, Jason C. Campbell, and Philip E. Hague (collectively, Owens) filed the instant design patent 1

9 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 08/24/2012 application for a Portion of a Bottle on February 2, A The application is a continuation of an earlier application that was filed on December 21, A On October 29, 2008, Owens amended the claimed design in the instant application by adding a broken boundary line altering the design. A The Board affirmed the Examiner s finding that the amended claim was not entitled to the benefit of the parent application s filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 because the earlier disclosure failed to provide adequate written description support for the claimed design under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1. A8-13. Because the claim was not entitled to the benefit of the 2004 filing date of the parent application, the Board affirmed the Examiner s rejection of Owens s claim under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of a bottle embodying the claimed design that was on sale more than one year before the 2006 filing date of the present application. A13. The Board also affirmed the Examiner s rejection of the amended claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1, because the disclosure of the present application as filed in 2006 failed to provide adequate written description support for the claimed design as amended in A14. This appeal followed. 1 A refers to pages of the Joint Appendix; Br. at refers to pages of Owens s opening brief. 2

10 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 08/24/2012 III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS A. The Claim on Appeal and the Prosecution History Owens filed the present application, 29/253,172 (the 172 application), on February 2, A The 172 application is a continuation of application 29/219,709 (the 709 application), filed on December 21, A On October 29, 2008, Owens amended the claimed design in the 172 application. A The amended claim is the claim on appeal. A2. Owens alleges that the amended claim is entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the 709 application in accordance with 35 U.S.C A4. 1. Application No. 29/219,709: The Original Application The earlier 709 application discloses a design for a bottle as shown below in Figures 1, 2, and 3 (perspective view, front view, and side view, respectively). A5; A The bottle includes substantially pentagonal, downwardly pointing front and back panels. A3; A231-32; A230 ( The back is the same in appearance as the front. ). Among other features, the bottle also includes narrow triangular facets adjacent to the upper side edges of the front and back panels and crescent-shaped surfaces adjacent to the upper edges of the front and back panels. A3; A While the figures disclose an entire bottle, any portion shown in dotted or broken 2 The 709 application issued on November 7, 2006, as U.S. Patent No. D531,515 (the 515 patent). A

11 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 11 Filed: 08/24/2012 lines (e.g., the cap portion) is not part of the design that was claimed in the 709 application as filed. See 37 C.F.R ( Broken lines may be used to show visible environmental structure. ). 4

12 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 12 Filed: 08/24/ Application No. 29/253,172: The Claim on Appeal The later 172 application as filed in 2006 discloses the same design for a bottle as its parent, the 709 application. A7; A On October 29, 2008, Owens amended the sole claim of the 172 application by submitting the following drawings, Figures 1, 2, and 3. A2; A The amended claim, which is the claim on appeal, is directed to a portion of a bottle that includes the crescent-shaped surface adjacent to the front and back panels and narrow triangular portions adjacent to the upper side edges of the front and back panels, both shown in solid lines. A3. These portions are shown in green 5

13 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 13 Filed: 08/24/2012 in the figure below, modified for illustrative purposes. The claim on appeal also includes a trapezoidal area on the front and back panels. Id. The horizontal dashdot broken line that divides the panel is an unclaimed boundary line indicating that the shaded trapezoidal area above the line is part of the claimed design, though the broken line itself is not part of the claim. Id. The trapezoidal section is shown in orange in the modified figure below. The remaining sections of the front and back panels form no part of the claimed design. Id. 6

14 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 14 Filed: 08/24/2012 B. The Examiner s Rejection During prosecution, Owens asserted that the claim on appeal was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application. Owens also admitted that if the claim did not receive the benefit of the earlier filing date, the claim would be unpatentable in view of the admitted sale of a bottle having the design claimed in the 515 patent more than one year before the 2006 filing date of the 172 application. A205; A216. The Examiner found that the claim on appeal was not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application under 35 U.S.C. 120 because the claimed design was not disclosed in the 709 application in a manner that satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, 1. A Specifically, the Examiner found that the trapezoidal shape on the front and back panels created by the dash-dot broken boundary line was not identified in the 709 application. A178. Therefore, the Examiner found, the earlier disclosure did not show that Owens was in possession of the later-claimed design at the time the 709 application was filed. Id. Because the claim on appeal was not entitled to the earlier filing date of the 709 application, the Examiner rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the bottle illustrated in the 515 patent, which Owens admitted was on sale more than one year before the filing date of the 172 application and rendered the claim unpatentable. A181-82; A216. 7

15 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 15 Filed: 08/24/2012 The Examiner also rejected the claim on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1, because the disclosure of the 172 application as originally filed in 2006 did not provide adequate written description support for the claimed design as amended in A214-15; A The Examiner applied the same reasoning that she used in denying Owens s benefit claim to the 709 application s filing date, viz., that there was no evidence that Owens was in possession of the trapezoidal shape defined by the insertion of the dash-dot broken line. A215; A C. The Board s Decision The Board affirmed the Examiner s decision rejecting the sole claim of the 172 application. A1-14. At the outset, the Board noted that Owens admitted that a bottle embodying the claimed design had been on sale more than one year before the filing date of the 172 application. A3-4. Thus, the Board recognized that the correctness of the Examiner s 103(a) rejection depended on whether the claim on appeal was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application. A4. That issue in turn hinged on whether the 709 application contained a written description adequate to convey to an ordinary designer that [Owens] possessed the subject matter of the claim on appeal as of the filing date of the 709 application. Id. Addressing that question, the Board found that Owens did not identify any feature or features in the figures of the original 709 application that might have 8

16 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 16 Filed: 08/24/2012 indicated to an ordinary designer that Owens had invented a design that included the substantially trapezoidally-shaped section present in the claimed design on appeal. A6 (FF 4). 3 The Board rejected Owens s argument that In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1998), controlled the present case. A In Daniels, the Board observed, the Court found that an earlier design application disclosing a container with a surface decoration adequately described the later-claimed design of the container after the surface decoration was removed. Id. In contrast to the facts of Daniels, the Board found that the particular body portion which embodies the claim on appeal here is not merely a product over which a surface decoration has been applied and then removed. A12. Rather, the Board found that the claimed design included an additional design feature not found in the original disclosure: The particular body portion which embodies the claimed design is an arbitrary portion of the bottle not clearly visible as a separate portion distinguishable from the remainder of the surface area of the front and back panels. Id. The Board also adopted the Examiner s findings, reasoning, and conclusions addressing some of the other legal and policy arguments made by Owens. Id. (citing A220-23). For example, the Board adopted the Examiner s rejection of Owens s argument that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 3 FF refers to the Board s findings of fact. 9

17 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 17 Filed: 08/24/2012 supported the addition of the dash-dot line without raising any written description issues with respect to the earlier disclosure. A And, in response to Owens s argument that the USPTO was preventing applicants from setting forth that which they regard as their claimed design, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, 2, the Examiner explained that [i]t is the examiner s duty to determine whether the design [appellants] now regard as their invention was disclosed in the application at the time it was filed. A222. Before the Board, Owens asserted that adding the unclaimed dash-dot boundary line broadened the scope of the claimed design, and that broadening the claim in that manner did not affect priority under 120. A9 (citing A (Appeal Brief)). In response, the Board analogized this situation to In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967 (CCPA 1971), in which the CCPA held that a narrower disclosure of an example or species does not necessarily provide sufficient written description support for a broader claim directed to a range or genus. A10 (citing Lukach, 442 F.2d at 968). The Board also cited In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976), for the broader proposition that mechanical rules [are not] a substitute for an analysis of each case on its facts to determine whether an application conveys to those skilled in the art the information that the applicant invented the subject matter of the claims. A Applying these concepts, the Board concluded that Owens failed to point to any feature or features in the drawing figures of the

18 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 18 Filed: 08/24/2012 application which might have suggested that [Owens] had invented a design embodied in part, but not all, of the front and back panels. A11 (citing FF 4). Finally, with respect to the 103(a) rejection, the Board concluded that there was no conflict between the finding that the 709 application failed to provide a written description of the subject matter of the claim on appeal and the conclusion that the subject matter of the claim on appeal would have been obvious from the bottle placed on sale more than a year before the filing date of the [ 172] application. A13 (citing Lukach, 442 F.2d at ). Finding that the claim on appeal was not entitled under 120 to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application, the Board sustained the Examiner s 103(a) rejection in view of Owens s admission that the sale of a bottle embodying the claimed design more than one year before the filing date of the 172 application will render the claim unpatentable if Owens is not entitled to an earlier priority date. Id. Owens did not contest the rejection of the claim on appeal under 112, 1, separately from the 103(a) rejection. A14. Accordingly, for the same reasons that the 709 application did not sufficiently describe the claimed design, the Board found that the 172 application failed to provide sufficient written description support and sustained the rejection under 112, 1. Id. 11

19 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 19 Filed: 08/24/2012 IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that the disclosure of a full bottle design in the earlier 709 application fails to provide sufficient written description support under 112, 1, for the later-claimed partial bottle design on appeal. The claim on appeal includes a trapezoidal section defined by a horizontal dash-dot boundary line dividing the front panel of the full bottle in a way that was not revealed in the original drawings of the 709 application. Nothing in the earlier disclosure suggests that an ordinary designer would recognize that Owens was in possession of the design feature now illustrated as of the filing date of the 709 application. This case is distinguishable from Daniels, in which the claimed design resulted from the removal of a surface decoration. The Court found that the earlier disclosure provided sufficient written description for the later-claimed design because all details of the claimed design were visible in the earlier drawings. In contrast to Daniels, Owens has not removed surface features. Instead, by removing a portion of the full bottle from his design by including a horizontal boundary line, Owens has added a new design feature that was never before revealed in the earlier drawings. Contrary to Owens s argument, the Board s finding that the 709 application fails to provide written description support for the claim on appeal is not 12

20 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 20 Filed: 08/24/2012 inconsistent with USPTO practice regarding the addition of broken lines. When an earlier disclosure shows that the inventor had possession of a claimed design that extends to a boundary, a broken boundary line may be added to clarify the extent of the claimed subject matter without violating the written description requirement. On the other hand, when the addition of a broken line boundary creates a new claimed design, and the earlier disclosure fails to show that the inventor had possession of that design at the time of the original disclosure, as in this case, the earlier disclosure does not provide adequate written description support for the amended claim. Owens s remaining arguments similarly lack merit. First, the Board s decision does not prevent an applicant from using the common practice of filing an application disclosing an entire product design and then using continuation applications to claim portions of the product design that were disclosed but not claimed in the original disclosure. Here, the later-claimed designs were not actually disclosed in the earlier application in a way that satisfies the written description requirement. Second, the Board s decision did not depend on its discussion of Lukach, which the Board cited only to rebut an argument that Owens has now abandoned. Finally, the rejection under 103(a) is not inconsistent with the Board s finding that the claimed design is not sufficiently disclosed in the 709 application. 13

21 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 21 Filed: 08/24/2012 V. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review Owens has the burden to show that the Board committed reversible error. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Whether a claimed invention is supported by an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, 1, is a question of fact. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Thus, this Court must uphold the Board s fact findings regarding compliance with the written description requirement if they are supported by substantial evidence. In re Alonso, 545 F.3d 1015, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). It is something less than the weight of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla of evidence. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). For example, where two different, inconsistent conclusions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in record, an agency s decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained upon review for substantial evidence. In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 14

22 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 22 Filed: 08/24/2012 B. Design Patent Law A design patent may be obtained for a new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, subject to the conditions and requirements of title U.S.C The design may be embodied in an entire article of manufacture or only a portion thereof. In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 267 (CCPA 1980). The subject matter of a design patent may relate to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, the configuration or shape of the article, or a combination of the two. Id. at 268. The drawings of a design patent provide the description of the invention. Daniels, 144 F.3d at A design patent may contain only a single claim, which must be to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described. 37 C.F.R (a). Solid lines in the drawings show the claimed design, whereas dotted and broken lines in the drawings may have different meanings but are not part of the claimed design. Zahn, 617 F.2d at 267; MPEP (III). Broken or dotted lines may be used to disclose structure that is not part of the claimed design but is necessary to show environment, including any portion of an article of manufacture in which the design is embodied that is not part of the claimed design. In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1967); 37 C.F.R ; MPEP (III). A broken line may also represent the boundary of the claimed design, indicating that the claimed design extends to the boundary but 15

23 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 23 Filed: 08/24/2012 does not include the boundary line. MPEP (III). When broken lines are used, the specification must include a textual statement indicating the purpose of the broken lines and stating that they form no part of the claimed design. Id.; MPEP (II). C. The 709 Application Fails to Provide Sufficient Written Description Support for the Claimed Design Because It Does Not Disclose the Claimed Trapezoidal Section Owens admits that the claim on appeal is unpatentable [under 103(a)] in view of the earlier sale of an admitted prior art bottle, i.e., the one illustrated in [the 515 patent.], if the claimed design is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application under 35 U.S.C Br. at 2. To obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date, the later-claimed design must be described in the 709 application in a matter that complies with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, 1. Daniels, 144 F.3d at 1456 (holding that that law of 120 applies to design patents as well as utility patents). Accordingly, the only issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that the

24 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 24 Filed: 08/24/2012 application fails to provide adequate written description support for the claim on appeal. 4 To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure of an application must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at The test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure convey[s] with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date..., [the inventor] was in possession of the [claimed] invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, (Fed. Cir. 1991). When the issue is whether an earlier design application provides sufficient written description support for a later-claimed design, the inquiry is whether the earlier disclosure the original drawings and any associated descriptions shows that the inventor had possession at the earlier date of what was claimed later. Daniels, 144 F.3d at Substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that the disclosure in the earlier 709 application does not adequately describe the later-claimed design. A6-4 Owens does not separately address the Board s affirmance of the Examiner s rejection under 112, 1, conceding that the ultimate issue hinges on whether the claimed design was disclosed in the earlier application. Br. at 21 n.22. As a result, the Director will address only whether the disclosure in the 709 application provides sufficient written description support for the claim on appeal. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ( Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived. ). 17

25 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 25 Filed: 08/24/2012 7; A Here, as shown below, the claim on appeal includes a trapezoidal section occupying the portion of the front panel above the horizontal broken boundary line. A2. Although the boundary line itself is not part of the claim, it nevertheless divides the front panel in a way that defines a separate, trapezoidal portion of the panel that 18

26 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 26 Filed: 08/24/2012 was not discernible in the 709 disclosure, which disclosed front and back panels that were pentagonally-shaped. A12. That is, with the boundary line added, a design feature is now illustrated that never before was revealed in Owens s earlier drawings. As the Board and the Examiner correctly found, there is nothing in the earlier disclosure suggesting that an ordinary designer would recognize that Owens was in possession of a partial bottle design having a front panel subdivided to create a trapezoidal section as of the filing date of the 709 application. A13; A Contrary to Owens s argument, Br. at 18-20, Daniels does not control the result in this case. As the Board explained, the facts here are distinguishable from those in Daniels. A The earlier design application in Daniels disclosed a container decorated on each side with a pattern of leaves. 144 F.3d at In a continuation application, Daniels amended the claim to remove the leaf pattern from the drawing. Id. at The Court found that the container as an article of manufacture [was] clearly visible in the earlier design application, demonstrating to the artisan viewing that application that Mr. Daniels had possession at that time of the later claimed design of that article. Id. at Significantly, the Court found that all details of the claimed design were visible in the drawings of the earlier application. Id. at Thus, although in Daniels 19

27 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 27 Filed: 08/24/2012 surface design features were removed, all the details of the later-claimed design were present in the earlier drawings. Id. Unlike the disclosure in Daniels, the drawings of the 709 application fail to show all the details of the claimed design. A12. Specifically, the 709 disclosure does not illustrate a design including a trapezoidal section that occupies some, but not all, of the front panel. Id. Further, in contrast to Daniels, Owens has not removed surface features, but by including a horizontal dash-dot line, Owens has added a new design feature that was never before revealed in his earlier drawings. As the Board put it, [t]he particular body portion which embodies the claimed design is an arbitrary portion of the bottle not clearly visible [in the 709 disclosure] as a separate portion distinguishable from the remainder of the surface area of the front and back panels. Id. Owens argues that Daniels is analogous to the present case because in both cases the later-claimed design is the result of removing or disclaiming a portion of the product shown in the earlier disclosure. Br. at 20. But Owens is reading Daniels too broadly. The portion of the earlier-disclosed article that was removed in Daniels was a surface decoration, resulting in a claimed design in the form of a product shape that itself was clearly visible in the earlier disclosure. 144 F.3d at 20

28 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 28 Filed: 08/24/ In contrast, to the extent that Owens has disclaimed portions of the originally-disclosed bottle, he has done so by adding a horizontal dash-dot boundary line, resulting in a new design shape that was not shown in the earlier disclosure in such a way that an ordinary designer would recognize that Owens had possession of it. A12. Owens also alleges that because the dash-dot broken boundary line is unclaimed, there is a one-to-one correspondence between all portions of the design claimed in the later application to those same portions visually disclosed in the earlier application. Br. at 24. Owens further argues that [a] designer of ordinary skill upon viewing all the drawings in both the earlier and later applications would immediately understand what the entire bottle looks like, as well as what the portion of that bottle now being claimed looks like. Id. Owens s proffered analysis, however, has no basis in the law. The proper inquiry is whether a designer of ordinary skill viewing only the earlier application would understand that the inventor had possession of the later-claimed design when the earlier application was filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351; Daniels, 144 F.3d at As the Board correctly found, Owens has not pointed to anything in the 709 disclosure that would suggest to an ordinary designer that Owens had possession of 5 In fact, the surface decoration that was later removed had actually been added to the inventor s original design by his previous counsel and was clearly distinct from the underlying product design. Daniels, 144 F.3d at

29 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 29 Filed: 08/24/2012 a design for a portion of a bottle that includes only the upper trapezoidal section of the front and rear panels. A The bottom line is that the claimed design on appeal was nowhere revealed in any of Owens s earlier drawings. Finally, there is no merit to Owens s argument that the USPTO improperly shifted to Owens the burden of presenting evidence or argument regarding the written description requirement. Br. at 23. As Owens points out, the Examiner had the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why a designer skilled in the art would not recognize in the earlier 709 disclosure a description of the laterclaimed design. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263). Here, there is no question that the Examiner carried her burden by explaining that the newly introduced unclaimed boundary line defined a new design with a trapezoidal shape that could not have been identified in the 709 disclosure. A178; A At that point, the burden properly shifted to Owens to explain how an ordinary designer would recognize in the 709 application a design including a trapezoidal area on the front and rear panels. Alton, 76 F.3d at Because Owens failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, substantial evidence supports the finding that the 709 application does not provide sufficient written description support for the later-claimed design. A

30 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 30 Filed: 08/24/2012 D. Owens s Additional Arguments Fail to Show Error in the Board s Decision 1. The Rejection Is Not Inconsistent With USPTO Practice Regarding Addition of Broken Lines As discussed above, broken lines may be used in design patents for various purposes. Zahn, 617 F.2d at 267; Blum, 374 F.2d at 907; MPEP (III); MPEP (III). One use is to define the bounds of a claimed design... when the boundary does not exist in reality. MPEP (III). The MPEP provides that such an unclaimed straight boundary line may be added during prosecution to connect the ends of existing solid lines when it is evident in the originally filed application that the claimed design extends to the boundary. Id. This use of broken lines simply allows an already existing boundary of a design to be better visualized. In contrast, as the Examiner found, the broken boundary line that Owens added in this case did not connect the ends of two solid lines and therefore was not the type of amendment explicitly permitted by the MPEP. A Rather, the broken line added by Owens defined a new boundary of a new design feature that was never before revealed. Id. Owens alleges that an applicant should be allowed to add straight broken line boundaries anywhere in his drawings, at any time, without any consequences. Br. at What Owens fails to recognize is that the purpose of the cited MPEP section is to provide for the addition of a broken boundary line to clarify the scope 23

31 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 31 Filed: 08/24/2012 of a design that has already been disclosed and claimed, i.e., to explicitly show a boundary of the claimed design that would have been recognized by an ordinary designer viewing the original disclosure and claim. MPEP (III). That is quite different from adding an arbitrary broken boundary line to claim a new design that was not described in the earlier disclosure, which is what Owens is attempting to do here. Owens further argues that there is no legal distinction as to why it is permissible to add a straight broken line boundary in some situations and not in others. Br. at 28. The relevant question is not what is permitted by the MPEP, however, but whether the claimed design that results from the added boundary line has sufficient written description support in the earlier disclosure under 112, 1. When it is apparent from the original disclosure that the inventor had possession of a claimed design that extends to a boundary, a broken line added to clarify the extent of the claimed subject matter would not run afoul of the written description requirement of 112, 1. That is the situation discussed in MPEP (III). On the other hand, when the addition of a broken line boundary creates a new claimed design, and the original disclosure does not show that the inventor had possession of that design at the time of the original disclosure, there is no written description support for the amended claim in the earlier disclosure. That is the situation in the present case. Thus, contrary to Owens s argument, there is no 24

32 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 32 Filed: 08/24/2012 inconsistency between the MPEP and the position of the Board and the Examiner in this case. 2. USPTO Practice Does Not Prevent the Use of Continuations to Claim Designs That Were Adequately Disclosed in an Earlier Design Application Owens argues that a design patent applicant should be able to disclaim any portion of a design in a continuation application and still have the benefit of the filing date of the parent application. Br. at In a similar vein, amicus curiae Method Products, Inc. (Method) urges that a drawing for a complete product provides 112, 1, support for a later claim to any portion of the product created by adding an unclaimed boundary line. Amicus Br. at Owens further alleges that a contrary rule would effectively prevent the common practice of using continuation applications to claim inventions that were disclosed but not claimed when the earlier application was filed. Br. at But that is precisely the point Owens never before disclosed the particular design that he now claims. That is, the common practice to which Owens refers has not been violated. The law is clear that a design claimed in a continuation application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application only if the earlier application discloses the later-claimed design in a way that satisfies the written description requirement of 112, 1. Daniels, 144 F.3d at In order to comply with that requirement, the earlier disclosure must convey to one skilled in 25

33 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 33 Filed: 08/24/2012 the art that the inventor had possession at that time of the later-claimed design. Id. In other words, it must be clear from the earlier disclosure that the inventor had actually contemplated and invented the later-claimed design as of the earlier filing date. Id. Thus, if the inventor later claims a specific portion of the earlierdisclosed design by inserting an unclaimed boundary line, the written description requirement is met only if the earlier disclosure clearly conveys that the inventor contemplated dividing the design along that boundary at the time of the original disclosure. Under this rule of law, if an applicant files an initial application disclosing a design for a complete product, any continuations claiming designs for different portions of the product are entitled to the benefit of the original filing date as long as the disclosure shows that the applicant initially had possession of those designs (i.e., the different portions later claimed were earlier disclosed). Therefore, contrary to Owens s contention, applicants are not prevented from using the common practice of filing continuation applications to claim designs that were actually disclosed in the earlier application, i.e., disclosed in a way that satisfies the written description requirement of 112, 1. Furthermore, the USPTO s approach is not based on a surreptitious or undocumented policy, as alleged by Method. Amicus Br. at 12, 14. The USPTO is simply enforcing the patentability requirements, including the law of written 26

34 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 34 Filed: 08/24/2012 description, in accordance with this Court s precedents. A later-claimed design to a portion of a product created by the insertion of a new boundary line has sufficient written description support only if the earlier disclosure shows that the inventor had possession of the particular portion of the product design now being claimed. See Daniels, 144 F.3d at Regardless of whether the USPTO allowed claims in other applications that Method alleges it should not have, Amicus Br. at 9-10, the USPTO s rejection of Owens s claim in this case was proper. Owens also argues that finding no written description support in the 709 application for the trapezoidal section is inconsistent with the Examiner s finding that the narrow triangular regions on the sides of the bottle in the claimed design are fully supported. Br. at But as the Examiner correctly found, the narrow triangular areas are clearly recognizable in the original disclosure, whereas the trapezoidal area was not originally illustrated. A219. Owens further alleges that because the Examiner and the Board did not object to the omission from his later claim of other regions of the design disclosed in the 709 application, Owens should also be permitted to omit a portion of the front and back panels without objection. Br. at But disclaiming clearly visible portions of the original design is quite different from disclaiming an arbitrary portion of the front panel that was not separately identifiable in the original disclosure, resulting 27

35 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 35 Filed: 08/24/2012 in a claim with a new design feature a trapezoidal section not previously disclosed. 3. Owens s Argument Regarding Lukach Does Not Show Reversible Error Owens argues that the Board improperly relied on Lukach in finding that the claim on appeal is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application. Br. at Owens s argument regarding Lukach does not show reversible error by the Board. The Board cited Lukach only to address an argument that Owens now renounces. Before the Board, Owens contended that the only difference between the claim on appeal and what was disclosed in the 709 application was that Owens had broadened the scope of the claimed design by adding an unclaimed horizontal boundary line. A9 (citing A194). Owens further contended before the Board that as a general proposition, one must conclude that broadening a design patent claim in a child application by disclaiming areas that were claimed in a parent application does not affect priority under 120. A9 (quoting A195). In rejecting Owens s argument, the Board cited Lukach for the general proposition that a broad claim (e.g., a claim to a range) is not necessarily supported by a narrower disclosure showing an example within the scope of the claim. A10 (citing Lukach, 442 F.2d at 969). While the Director recognizes that the concept of broad versus 28

36 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 36 Filed: 08/24/2012 narrow claims may not be particularly applicable in the design patent context, the Board simply cited Lukach as a rebuttal to Owens s overly broad argument. See A10 n.3. Regardless, the issue is no longer relevant because Owens now disavows his earlier position that the claim on appeal is broader than the subject matter disclosed or claimed in the 709 application. Br. at 35 n.44. Because the Board cited Lukach only to rebut one of Owens s arguments, an argument that Owens has now abandoned, it is clear that the Board s decision did not depend on its discussion of Lukach. The Board considered Owens s other arguments and responded to them without reference to Lukach. A Thus, the remainder of the Board s decision stands on its own and provides more than substantial evidence in support of the finding that the claim on appeal is not adequately described in the 709 application. Id The Rejection Under 103(a) Is Not Inconsistent with the Board s Finding That the Claimed Design Is Not Sufficiently Disclosed in the 709 Application Finally, Owens argues that the rejection of the claim on appeal under 103(a) is inconsistent with finding that the claimed design is not disclosed in the 709 application in a manner that satisfies the written description requirement of 6 Even if Lukach does not directly support the Board s findings, the Board s discussion of the case did not affect its decision and was at most harmless error. See Watts, 354 F.3d at

37 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 37 Filed: 08/24/ , 1. Br. at Owens s position is not supported by the record and is contrary to well-established case law. First, Owens admits that if the claim on appeal is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the 709 application, the claim is anticipated or rendered obvious by the bottle that was on sale more than one year before the filing date of the 172 application. Br. at 44. Thus, Owens can only challenge the finding that the claimed design is not adequately described in the 709 application to meet the written description requirement, not the merits of the 103(a) rejection. Next, as the Board correctly found, there is no conflict between the Examiner s finding that the claimed design was not described in the 709 application and the obviousness conclusion. A13. As Owens admits, a design that results from dividing up the front panel of the bottle would have been obvious in view of the fully disclosed bottle. Br. at 43; A181; A216. But 112, 1 requires more a showing that the inventor actually had possession of the claimed partial bottle design as of the filing date. A13; A223. Simply because Owens s new design may have been obvious to an ordinary artisan does not establish that Owens had possession of that design. Owens has failed to provide any persuasive evidence or argument in response to the Examiner s finding that the drawings of the 709 application provide no indication that the inventors had possession of a bottle design divided to create a new design with a trapezoidal section on the front 30

38 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 38 Filed: 08/24/2012 panel. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that the 709 disclosure does not provide adequate written description support for the claimed design. A13. Lastly, Owens urges the elimination of a double standard between the requirements for 112, 1, and 102 and 103 for design patents. Br. at 45. Owens appears to acknowledge the existence of case law holding that a description that merely renders an invention obvious does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, (Fed. Cir. 1997). He also acknowledges that in some situations a disclosure may anticipate a claim yet still not adequately describe the claimed subject matter for purposes of 112, 1. See Lukach, 442 F.2d at 970 ( [T]he description of a single embodiment of broadly claimed subject matter constitutes a description of the invention for anticipation purposes..., whereas the same information in a specification might not alone be enough to provide a description of that invention for purposes of adequate disclosure. (internal citation omitted)). Although Owens argues that the rule of law established by these cases should apply only to utility patents, this Court has previously held that it also applies in the design patent context. See In re Salmon, 705 F.2d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Court, therefore, should reject Owens s plea to establish a different rule for design patents. 31

39 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 39 Filed: 08/24/2012 VI. CONCLUSION Because the Board s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and is in accordance with the law, this Court should affirm. Respectfully submitted, August 24, 2012 /s/ LYNNE E. PETTIGREW RAYMOND T. CHEN Solicitor LYNNE E. PETTIGREW WILLIAM LAMARCA Associate Solicitors Office of the Solicitor Mail Stop 8 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA (571) Attorneys for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 32

40 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 40 Filed: 08/24/2012 RULE 32(a)(7)(C) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify pursuant to Fed. R. App. Proc. 32(a)(7) that the foregoing BRIEF FOR APPELLEE- DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE complies with the type-volume limitation required by the Court s rule. The total number of words in the foregoing brief, excluding table of contents and table of authorities, is 6,929 words as calculated using the Word software program. /s/ LYNNE E. PETTIGREW Associate Solicitor

41 Case: CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 41 Filed: 08/24/2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 24, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing BRIEF FOR APPELLEE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, using the Court s CM/ECF filing system. Counsel for the Appellant was electronically served via per Fed. R. App. P. 25 and Fed. Cir. R. 25(a) and 25(b). /s/ LYNNE E. PETTIGREW Associate Solicitor

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, AND PHILIP E. HAGUE. 2012-1261 Appeal from the United States Patent

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 12-1261 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 05/23/2012 Corrected 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. HAGUE Appeal from

More information

(Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

(Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. HAGUE Appeal from

More information

Chapter 1500 Design Patents

Chapter 1500 Design Patents Chapter 1500 Design Patents 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable 1502 Definition of a Design 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application 1503.01 Specification

More information

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC.,

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC., Case Nos. 2016-2388, 2017-1020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., v. ILLUMINA, INC., ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Appellant, Appellee,

More information

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Manual of Patent Examining Procedures(MPEP) Chapter 1500 Design Patents Ninth Edition, November 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Manual of Patent Examining Procedures(MPEP) Chapter 1500 Design Patents Ninth Edition, November 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Manual of Patent Examining Procedures(MPEP) Chapter 1500 Design Patents Ninth Edition, November 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable[R-07.2015] 1502 Definition

More information

DESIGN PATENT CASE ALERT: Parker v. Kimberly- Clark, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2565 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2012)

DESIGN PATENT CASE ALERT: Parker v. Kimberly- Clark, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2565 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2012) DESIGN PATENT CASE ALERT: Parker v. Kimberly- Clark, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2565 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2012) Design Patent: D589,611 Sanitary Napkin D589,611 ISSUE: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Failure

More information

Paper 14 Tel: Entered: June 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 14 Tel: Entered: June 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioner v. ALETHIA

More information

Chapter 1500 Design Patents

Chapter 1500 Design Patents Chapter 1500 Design Patents 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable 1502 Definition of a Design 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application 1503.01 Specification

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 2012-1420 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

More information

Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy

Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE MEMORANDUM Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov Date: September 2, 2008 To:

More information

A Guide To Filing A Design Patent Application. Prepared by I.N. Tansel from pac/design/toc.

A Guide To Filing A Design Patent Application. Prepared by I.N. Tansel from   pac/design/toc. A Guide To Filing A Design Patent Application Prepared by I.N. Tansel from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ pac/design/toc.html#improper Definition of a Design A design consists of the visual ornamental

More information

Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION TO CHEMICAL PATENT PRACTICE: SETTING THE STAGE FOR DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RISK OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND ENHANCING CHANCES OF INFRINGEMENT,

More information

CIP S ARE USELESS BY LOUIS J. HOFFMAN HOFFMAN PATENT FIRM PHOENIX, ARIZONA NAPP 2005 CONVENTION

CIP S ARE USELESS BY LOUIS J. HOFFMAN HOFFMAN PATENT FIRM PHOENIX, ARIZONA NAPP 2005 CONVENTION CIP S ARE USELESS BY LOUIS J. HOFFMAN HOFFMAN PATENT FIRM PHOENIX, ARIZONA NAPP 2005 CONVENTION 1 I. REFRESHER ON PRIORITY A. WHEN IN DOUBT, START WITH THE STATUTE Section 120 of the Patent Act lists (a)

More information

~O~rE~ OFFICE OF PETITIONS JAN Haisam Yakoub 2700 Saratoga Place #815 Ottawa ON K1T 1W4 CA CANADA

~O~rE~ OFFICE OF PETITIONS JAN Haisam Yakoub 2700 Saratoga Place #815 Ottawa ON K1T 1W4 CA CANADA UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ~O~rE~ JAN 2 0 2016 Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov OFFICE OF PETITIONS

More information

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Patent Resources Group Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION II. USER GUIDE: Overview of America Invents Act Changes with Respect to Prior Art III. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1526, -1527, -1551 DOOR-MASTER CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, YORKTOWNE, INC., and Defendant-Appellant, CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES,

More information

US Design Patents for Graphical User Interfaces in the US. Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC

US Design Patents for Graphical User Interfaces in the US. Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC US Design Patents for Graphical User Interfaces in the US Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC mpolson@polsoniplaw.com 303-485-7640 Facts about US design patents The filings of design patent

More information

Paper 48 Tel: Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 48 Tel: Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 48 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VERITAS

More information

US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims

US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2011 Author(s): Charles R. Macedo In re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, US Court of Appeals for

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553

More information

The petition to change patent term adjustment determination under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) from 153 days to a 318 days is DENIED.

The petition to change patent term adjustment determination under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) from 153 days to a 318 days is DENIED. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. MAILED P.O. BOX 1022 SEP 13 2011 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1022 OFFICE OF PETITIONS In re Patent No. 7,855,318 Xu Issue Date: December 21, 2010

More information

Paper No Filed: December 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper No Filed: December 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 13 571-272-7822 Filed: December 12, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MUNCHKIN, INC., Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL REFILLS

More information

Written Description. John B. Pegram FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Paula K. Davis ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

Written Description. John B. Pegram FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Paula K. Davis ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Written Description John B. Pegram FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Paula K. Davis ELI LILLY AND COMPANY October, 2013 1 The Principal Issues The International Problem Similar statutory description requirements

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1278 (Interference No. 104,818) IN RE JEFFREY M. SULLIVAN and DANIEL ANTHONY GATELY Edward S. Irons, of Washington, DC, for appellants. John M.

More information

For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious, and adequately

For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious, and adequately Limin Zheng Box 650 limin@boalthall.berkeley.edu CASE REPORT: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (2000) I. INTRODUCTION For a patent to be valid, it needs to be useful, novel, nonobvious,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. In re Lewis Ferguson et al (Appellants)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. In re Lewis Ferguson et al (Appellants) 2007-1232 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT In re Lewis Ferguson et al (Appellants) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.

More information

1~~~rew OFFICE OF PETITIONS RELEVANT BACKGROUND OCT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

1~~~rew OFFICE OF PETITIONS RELEVANT BACKGROUND OCT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA VA

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Serial No. 09/725,737) IN RE PETER JOSEPH GIACOMINI, WALTER MICHAEL PITIO, HECTOR FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, AND DONALD DAVID SCHUGARD 2009-1400 Appeal

More information

Paper Date: January 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: January 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 35 571-272-7822 Date: January 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Petitioner, v. ANSELL HEALTHCARE

More information

In re Metoprolol Succinate Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Walter B. Welsh St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford, Connecticut

In re Metoprolol Succinate Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Walter B. Welsh St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford, Connecticut In re Metoprolol Succinate Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Walter B. Welsh St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford, Connecticut I. INTRODUCTION In Metoprolol Succinate the Court of Appeals for

More information

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted Chapter 1900 Protest 1901 Protest Under 37 CFR 1.291 1901.01 Who Can Protest 1901.02 Information Which Can Be Relied on in Protest 1901.03 How Protest Is Submitted 1901.04 When Should the Protest Be Submitted

More information

Rule 130 Declarations for First-Inventor-to-File Applications

Rule 130 Declarations for First-Inventor-to-File Applications 10/18/2016 1 Rule 130 Declarations for First-Inventor-to-File Applications Biotech/Chem/Pharma Customer Partnership Meeting October 19, 2016 Kathleen Kahler Fonda Senior Legal Advisor Office of Patent

More information

New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007

New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY October 2007 New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new rules for the patent application

More information

Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting. James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC

Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting. James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC Reviewing Common Themes in Double Patenting James Wilson, SPE 1624 TC 1600 James.Wilson@uspto.gov 571-272-0661 What is Double Patenting (DP)? Statutory DP Based on 35 USC 101 An applicant (or assignee)

More information

Giacomini: Patent-Defeating Date based on Provisional App n Priority

Giacomini: Patent-Defeating Date based on Provisional App n Priority Giacomini: Patent-Defeating Date based on Provisional App n Priority Today in In re Giacomini, F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2010)(Rader, C.J.), the Court held that the patent-defeating date of a United States patent

More information

Paper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. D527,834 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.100 Application/Control

More information

IP Innovations Class

IP Innovations Class IP Innovations Class Pitfalls for Patent Practitioners December 9, 2010 Presented by: Kris Doyle KDoyle@KilpatrickStockton.com 1 PRESERVING FOREIGN PATENT RIGHTS 2 1st Takeaway Absolute novelty is not

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI 2012-1086 (Serial No. 10/045,902) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

More information

U.S. Design Patent Protection. Finnish Patent Office April 10, 2018

U.S. Design Patent Protection. Finnish Patent Office April 10, 2018 U.S. Design Patent Protection Finnish Patent Office April 10, 2018 Design Patent Protection Presentation Overview What are Design Patents? General Requirements Examples Examination Process 3 What is a

More information

The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:

The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws: Question Q217 National Group: United States Title: The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness Contributors: Marc V. Richards Chair Alan Kasper Drew Meunier Joshua Goldberg Dan Altman

More information

The Death of the Written Description Requirement? Analysis and Potential Outcomes of the Ariad Case

The Death of the Written Description Requirement? Analysis and Potential Outcomes of the Ariad Case The Death of the Written Description Requirement? Analysis and Potential Outcomes of the Ariad Case By: Michael A. Leonard II Overview There is significant disagreement among judges of the Court of Appeals

More information

MEMORANDUM. DATE: April 19, 2018 TO: FROM:

MEMORANDUM. DATE: April 19, 2018 TO: FROM: ii ~ %~fj ~ ~ ~htofeo~ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov MEMORANDUM DATE:

More information

Kevin C. Adam* I. INTRODUCTION

Kevin C. Adam* I. INTRODUCTION Structure or Function? AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. and the Federal Circuit s Structure- Function Analysis of Functionally Defined Genus Claims Under Section 112 s Written Description

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1247 RONALD E. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

v. Civil Action No RGA

v. Civil Action No RGA Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation Doc. 432 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Robocast, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-1055-RGA Microsoft Corporation, Defendant.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1062 LIZARDTECH, INC., and Plaintiff-Appellant, REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiffs EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING, INC., and EARTH

More information

Paper 33 Tel: Entered: February 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 33 Tel: Entered: February 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SENSIO, INC. Petitioner, v. SELECT BRANDS, INC.

More information

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination Webinar Guidelines Participants are in listen-only mode Submit questions via the Q&A box on the bottom right panel

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 31, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Petitioner,

More information

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1507 (Serial No. 08/405,454) IN RE JOHN B. SULLIVAN and FINDLAY E. RUSSELL Lawrence M. Green, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts,

More information

Il ~ [E ~ OFFICE OF PETITtONS AUG BACKGROUND. Patricia Derrick DBA Brainpaths 4186 Melodia Songo CT Las Vegas NV

Il ~ [E ~ OFFICE OF PETITtONS AUG BACKGROUND. Patricia Derrick DBA Brainpaths 4186 Melodia Songo CT Las Vegas NV UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Il ~ [E ~ AUG 06 2016 Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.usp fo.gov OFFICE OF PETITtONS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1348-N ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1348-N ORDER Case 3:14-cv-01348-N Document 95 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3285 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LAKESOUTH HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant 2016-1173 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ENOCEAN GMBH, Appellant, v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. 2012-1645 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of

More information

Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger

Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent

More information

Paper 34 Tel: Entered: June 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 34 Tel: Entered: June 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., Petitioner, v. e-watch, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

Art. 123(2) EPC ADDED MATTER A US Perspective. by Enrica Bruno Patent Attorney. Steinfl & Bruno LLP Intellectual Property Law

Art. 123(2) EPC ADDED MATTER A US Perspective. by Enrica Bruno Patent Attorney. Steinfl & Bruno LLP Intellectual Property Law Art. 123(2) EPC ADDED MATTER A US Perspective by Enrica Bruno Patent Attorney US Background: New matter Relevant provisions 35 USC 132 or 35 USC 251 If new subject matter is added to the disclosure, whether

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ABBOTT GMBH, Defendant-Appellee 2015-1662 Appeal from the United States District Court

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Appeal Reexamination Control No. 90/012,671 U.S. Patent 7,010,508 B1 Technology Center 3900

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Appeal Reexamination Control No. 90/012,671 U.S. Patent 7,010,508 B1 Technology Center 3900 Case: 16-1371 Document: 1-3 Page: 9 Filed: 12/29/2015 (15 of 41) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD Appeal 2015-000143 Technology

More information

Now What? Samsung v. Apple and Design Patent Damages. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Theodore Brown, Senior Counsel

Now What? Samsung v. Apple and Design Patent Damages. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Theodore Brown, Senior Counsel Samsung v. Apple and Design Patent Damages Now What? Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Theodore Brown, Senior Counsel tbrown@kilpatricktownsend.com January 10, 2017 Review Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics

More information

Paper 32 Tel: Entered: February 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 32 Tel: Entered: February 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SENSIO, INC. Petitioner, v. SELECT BRANDS, INC.

More information

Plausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1. As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009

Plausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1. As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009 Plausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1 As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009 Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court of

More information

USPTO Final Rule Changes for Continuations and Claims. John B. Pegram Ronald C. Lundquist August 30, 2007

USPTO Final Rule Changes for Continuations and Claims. John B. Pegram Ronald C. Lundquist August 30, 2007 USPTO Final Rule Changes for Continuations and Claims John B. Pegram Ronald C. Lundquist August 30, 2007 Our Backgrounds Ron: Patent prosecution, opinions, due diligence and client counseling Emphasis

More information

VECTRA FITNESS, INC., TNWK CORPORATION, (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation),

VECTRA FITNESS, INC., TNWK CORPORATION, (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 98-1192 Plaintiff-Appellant, VECTRA FITNESS, INC., v. TNWK CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. (formerly known as Pacific Fitness Corporation), Ramsey

More information

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant

More information

Paper Entered: May 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 129 571-272-7822 Entered: May 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner v. TESSERA, INC. Patent

More information

Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield

Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing

More information

Understanding and Applying the CREATE Act in Collaborations

Understanding and Applying the CREATE Act in Collaborations Page 1 Understanding and Applying the CREATE Act in Collaborations, is an assistant professor at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * CHRISTINE WARREN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 18, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1 Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.

More information

Paper Entered: January 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: January 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 60 571-272-7822 Entered: January 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVX CORPORATION and AVX FILTERS CORPORATION, Petitioner,

More information

Paper 8 Tel: Entered: October 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 8 Tel: Entered: October 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SUPERCELL OY, Petitioner, v. GREE, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 17-1726 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2017 2017-1726 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellant v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, Appellee JOSEPH MATAL,

More information

HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE:

HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE: HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE: #8 Collected Case Law, Rules, and MPEP Materials 2004 Kagan Binder, PLLC How to Evaluate When a Reissue violates the Recapture Rule: Collected

More information

Chapter 1400 Correction of Patents

Chapter 1400 Correction of Patents Chapter 1400 Correction of Patents 1400.01 Introduction 1401 Reissue 1402 Grounds for Filing 1403 Diligence in Filing 1404 Submission of Papers Where Reissue Patent Is in Litigation 1405 Reissue and Patent

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals Docket No. 2008-1248 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, THE WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, AND

More information

Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3

Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3 Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Parag Shekher 3 Introduction The Federal Circuit stated that it granted a rare petition for a writ of mandamus

More information

March 16, Mary Denison Commissioner for Trademarks U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA

March 16, Mary Denison Commissioner for Trademarks U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA March 16, 2017 Mary Denison Commissioner for Trademarks U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 Re: Request for Comments Concerning a Draft Examination Guide on Incapable

More information

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name:

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: [Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT-2018-0001)] Case Name: ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE RAJEN M. PATEL, GERT CLAASEN, WENBIN LIANG, KARIN KATZER, KENNETH B. STEWART, THOMAS ALLGEUER, AND

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCRIPTPRO, LLC AND SCRIPTPRO USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1561 Appeal from the United

More information

G. A. Flores, Jr., Law Offices of G. A. Flores, Jr., Ted D. Lee, Gunn & Lee, PC, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs.

G. A. Flores, Jr., Law Offices of G. A. Flores, Jr., Ted D. Lee, Gunn & Lee, PC, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. Gilbert R. SADA, and Victor L. Hernandez, Plaintiffs. v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. SA-04-CA-541-OG

More information

BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION

BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW Presented: 19 th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute November 6-7, 2014 Austin, Texas BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION Mark E. Scott Darlene F. Ghavimi Author contact

More information

Interpretation of Functional Language

Interpretation of Functional Language Interpretation of Functional Language In re Chudik (Fed. Cir. January 9, 2017) Chris McDonald February 8, 2017 2016 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP MPEP - Functional Language MPEP 2173.05(g) Functional

More information

Case 1:17-cv TSE-IDD Document 29 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 1277

Case 1:17-cv TSE-IDD Document 29 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 1277 Case 1:17-cv-00733-TSE-IDD Document 29 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 1277 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

More information

Patent Prosecution Update

Patent Prosecution Update Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45 571-272-7822 Entered: August 29, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS,

More information

Paper: 27 Tel: Entered: November, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper: 27 Tel: Entered: November, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 27 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November, 30 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVER INFORMATION INC. AND IPEVO, INC., Petitioner,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORP. AND REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Petitioners v. IMMUNEX CORPORATION,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit K/S HIMPP, Appellant, v. HEAR-WEAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellee. 2013-1549 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 7 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1475 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 16-2149 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2016 No. 2016-2149 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT EVIDEO OWNERS, MAURO DIDOMENICO, individually and on behalf of all those

More information