Source: http://www.ptab.us/2012/12/bilski-boehringer-corkill-manziere-mayo.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:37:17+00:00

Document:
“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).
See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).
An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.

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