AIPLA ID Committee Meeting AIPLA Spring Meeting (Seattle) May 2, 2013

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph By: Sheetal S. Patel.
Advertisements

Incorporation by Reference
Anatomy of a Patent Application Presented by: Jeong Oh Director, Office of Technology Transfer & Industrial Development Syracuse University April 30, 2009.
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Meeting October 8, 2002 William F. Smith Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE A full transcript of this presentation can be found under the “Notes” Tab. Claim Interpretation: Broadest Reasonable.
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
Preparing Software Patent Applications in 10 Minutes or Less USPTO Software Partnership Roundtable (Stanford University) Aseet Patel Patent Attorney (and.
September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.
35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph MPEP 2181 – 2186 Jean Witz Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
Renaissance of U.S. Design Patents Steven M. Gruskin Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, D.C. PLI Seminar, New York City January 31,
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
JPO’s Reliance on Experimental Results in Patent Applications -From the Aspect of Requirements for Description of Claims and Specification- JPAA International.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
A comparative analysis with a harmonizing perspective A RT. 123(2) EPC AND US W RITTEN D ESCRIPTION 1 © AIPLA 2015 Enrica Bruno - Steinfl & Bruno LLP.
By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.
Current and Future USPTO Practice RESTRICTION PRACTICES AT THE USPTO 1 © AIPLA 2015.
How to Write a Literature Review
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Understanding patent claims (e) Electrical power converter.
The Patent Document II Class Notes: January 23, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
Overcoming Prior Art References Non-Enabling Prior Art References Gary Kunz SPE Art Unit 1616.
35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph Examination Memorandum Robert Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association DESIGN PATENTS: STATISTICS, TRENDS AND PRACTICAL TIPS DONALD STUDEBAKER AIPLA IP PRACTICE.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU
Patent Prosecution Luncheon October Patent Document Exchange China now participating in Patent Document Exchange (PDX) program. –Effective October.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association U.S. Implementation of the Hague Agreement For Designs John (Jack) J. Penny, V Event.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Recent IP Case in Japan Interplay of Protection by Copyright and by Design Patent Chihiro.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC US Design Patents Overview.
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patent October PTO News Backlog of applications continues to decrease –623,000 now, decreasing about 5,000/ month –Expected.
Report to the AIPLA’s IP Practice in Japan Committee January 22, 2012 USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules Presented by: Stephen S. Wentsler.
Patents II Disclosure Requirements Class 12 Notes Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2004 Professor Wagner.
美国外观专利处理实务 Elements of a Design Patent Application  1. The Title  2. The Figure Descriptions  3. (Feature description)  4. A single claim  5. Drawings.
The Impact of Patent Reform on Independent Inventors and Start-up Companies Mark Nowotarski (Patent Agent)
LYDON - TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS1 Terminal Disclaimer (TD) A Terminal Disclaimer states that the patent –will expire on the same date as a related.
10/13/081 PARK - SPEC SAME IN APP & PAT The Specification: Application v. Issued Patent Why is the specification in the application almost exactly identical.
Yuichi Watanabe Osha Liang LLP January 26, 2016 Practice Tips: Prosecution of Japan-origin US applications 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Evaluating random presentations as a form of undergraduate tutorial evaluation November 2012.
Post-Conviction Relief
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
Prosecution Group Luncheon
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
Preparing a Patent Application
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
Tim Saulsbury -- Continuations in Part
SAT Notes: Please get out your notebook and turn to the writing section. We are taking notes today.
Keiko K. Takagi Sughrue Mion, PLLC
Of Counsel Polsinelli, LLP
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
George Kapsalas Patentbüro Paul Rosenich AG
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
OTHER INVALIDITY CHALLENGES
Recap of Aristotle So Far…
Global Innovation Management Workout on Writing a Patent
Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003
Justifying an Evaluation
Recap of Aristotle So Far…
Patents II Disclosure Requirements
Written Description Design Law 2018 Dan Gajewski October 24, 2018.
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
Preparing a Patent Application
Upcoming changes in the European Patent Office practice on allowing claim amendments in pending patent applications (Article 123(2) EPC) Christof Keussen.
Preparing Software Patent Applications in 10 Minutes or Less
The Other 66 Percent: Appeals Before the PTAB
Presentation transcript:

AIPLA ID Committee Meeting AIPLA Spring Meeting (Seattle) May 2, 2013 In re Owens Summary and Oral Argument Update AIPLA ID Committee Call January 24, 2013 Rich Stockton In re Owens Summary AIPLA ID Committee Meeting AIPLA Spring Meeting (Seattle) May 2, 2013 Rich Stockton

“CREST” “PRO-HEALTH”

Parent Application: Original Figures

Child Application: Original Figures

Child Application: Amended Figures

BPAI Relied on Lukach (CCPA 1971)

BPAI Distinguished In re Daniels

Amicus Brief: Empirical Example

Amicus Brief: Design Day Inconsistencies

Amicus Brief: Design Day Inconsistencies

Federal Circuit Opinion: 3/26/13 Daniels Distinguished/Limited “The patentee in Daniels did not introduce any new unclaimed lines, he removed an entire design element. It does not follow from Daniels that an applicant, having been granted a claim to a particular design element, may proceed to subdivide that element in subsequent continuations however he pleases.” (p. 9)

Federal Circuit Opinion: 3/26/13 Written Description “… the written description question does not turn upon what has been disclaimed, but instead upon whether the original disclosure ‘clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’”(p. 9)

Federal Circuit Opinion: 3/26/13 Written Description (cont.): Test “Therefore, the question for written description purposes is whether a skilled artisan would recognize upon reading the parent’s disclosure that the trapezoidal top portion of the front panel might be claimed separately from the remainder of that area.” (p. 10)

MPEP 1503.02 “Where no boundary line is shown in a design application as originally filed, but it is clear from the design specification that the boundary of the claimed design is a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed design, applicant may amend the drawing(s) to add a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed subject matter.”

Federal Circuit Op. re MPEP 1503.02 “Were this the rule, it might be acceptable for Owens to bisect his front panel with a broken line along the pentagon’s widest point. However, it seems that such a boundary would simply outline a larger trapezoidal area, and so the resulting claim would suffer from the same written description problems as the ’172 application.” (pp. 10-11)

Federal Cir.: Advice to Applicants “In our view, the best advice for future applicants was presented in the PTO’s brief, which argued that unclaimed boundary lines typically should satisfy the written description requirement only if they make explicit a boundary that already exists, but was unclaimed, in the original disclosure. Although counsel for the PTO conceded at oral argument that he could not reconcile all past allowances under this standard, he maintained that all future applications will be evaluated according to it.” (p. 11)

Design Day “Slide of Death” (photo from George Raynal @dsgnptnt)