Source: https://www.straffordpub.com/products/sect-112-indefiniteness-in-chemical-and-biotech-patent-claims-2018-02-14
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:35:58+00:00

Document:
This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel on the impact of recent Federal Circuit and PTAB case law on daily patent practice. The panel will offer best practices to navigate pre- and post-issuance scrutiny for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S._, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Supreme Court held unanimously that the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard for indefiniteness “breed[s] lower court confusion.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(per curiam) and Ex parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (precedential), show that the USPTO applies a different (lower) standard; a difference that stems from the different claim construction standard applied by the USPTO than the courts.
Where does that leave the chem/bio patent practitioner? Different standards for indefiniteness depending on whether the claim is pre-issuance in the PTO or post-issuance in the courts?
What is needed is a context-specific inquiry into whether particular functional language actually provides the required reasonable certainty.
Does functional claiming language provide a path for life science claims struggling with §112 indefiniteness (and §101 subject matter eligibility)?
And what about PTAB proceedings? Section 112 arguments may arise as a ground of unpatentability in post-grant review (PGR) and in the context of priority date assertions in inter partes reviews (IPRs). IPRs and PGRs relate to issued claims, but so far, the ability to amend claims (a rationale for the appropriateness of the application of the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard) has been almost nonexistent, although one eagerly awaits to see what difference, if any, results from Aqua Products.
Will there be more successful §112 arguments in IPRs/PGRs post-Packard/McAward?
Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys discusses the impact of recent Federal Circuit and PTAB caselaw on your daily patent practice. The panel will offer best practices to navigate pre-and post-issuance scrutiny for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
How do the decisions distinguish the USPTO’s standard and the court’s standard for indefiniteness?
What are the implications of the post-Nautilus and post-Packard/McAward cases for patent counsel in drafting applications?
What steps can counsel take to increase the likelihood that patent claims will survive in litigation and under PTAB review?

References: §112
 v. 
 §112
 §101
 §112
 §112