Source: https://www.ptab.us/2018/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:01:50+00:00

Document:
2617 Ex Parte Berretty et al 11577745 - (D) BUI 101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BADER, ROBERT N.
"In other words, the specification of the provisional must 'contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,' 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1), to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the non-provisional application." Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed.Cir.2002)) (emphasis added).
The test of double patenting is whether differences between inventions claimed in the instant application and in the copending reference application are such that subject matter sought to be patented would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of any prior art additionally relied on In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 558 (CCPA 1966).
As such, Appellants argue the present claims are most analogous to Core Wireless (Reply Br. 3, 6-7 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).
2617 Ex Parte HECHT 14210138 - (D) SHAW 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP / PIXAR BADER, ROBERT N.
"The familiar rule that any doubt which exists should be resolved in favor of the applicant is here applicable." In re Kirschbraun, 44 F.2d 675, 677 (CCPA 1930).
2875 Ex Parte Allen 13645790 - (D) GARRIS 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc. LEE, NATHANIEL J.
Appellants do not direct us to, and we do not find, a specific definition of the term "between" in the Specification. The Specification provides only minimal discussion of the plunger rod and does not list any express limitations of the plunger rod in relation to the handle or body.
In the absence of a definition or express limitation, we interpret the term as broadly as reasonable and consistent with the Specification. We are mindful, though, not to import limitations from a specification unnecessarily. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination. Whether a particular technology is well understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
3688 Ex Parte Ionescu et al 13547819 - (D) WIEDER 103 103 Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.
2617 Ex Parte Knibbeler et al 14346765 - (D) BEAMER 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BADER, ROBERT N.

References: § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.