Source: http://toyosu.com/ura2005.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:05:16+00:00

Document:
・"Provisions for Claiming the Benefit of a Provisional Application With a Non-English Specification and Other Miscellaneous Matters." 70 FR 56119 (September 26, 2005).
・Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Eighth Edition, August 2001, Latest Revision August 2005 (October 22, 2005 ).
Our determination is that there is currently no judicially recognized separate "technological arts" test to determine patent eligible subject matter under § 101.　We decline to create one. Therefore, it is apparent that the examiner's rejection can not be sustained.
・"MPEP 8th Ed. R2, 2106 Patentable Subject Matter - Computer-Related Inventions -Computer-Related Processes Limited to a Practical Application in the Technological Arts"
...Only when the claim is devoid of any limitation to a practical application in the technological arts should it be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
・Dennis Crouch, "Patent Board Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement For Business Method Patents", Patently-O: Patent Law Blog (Oct. 17, 2005).
・Joel Lutzker, "Boost to Patent Protection for Business Methods." asialaw (Dec 2005/Jan 2006).
・Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 126 S. Ct. 543, 163 L. Ed. 2d 458, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 7857 (U.S. 2005) Writ of certiorari granted, in part on October 31, 2005., vacated, and cert. granted, in part, on reconsideration on November 2, 2005.
Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to “correlat[e]” test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result.
・Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 71 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
・Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
・Joel Lutzker, "LabCorp v. Metabolite: Supreme Court To Hear Patent Case Questioning Patentability Of Medical Method", Patently-O: Patent Law Blog (Oct. 31, 2005).
・Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Nos. 04-1451 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
...multiple examples of repetitive refilings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustifiably delayed prosecution may be held to constitute laches.
・Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found.,. 301 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Nev. 2004).
...if the defense of prosecution laches does not apply under the totality of the circumstances here, the Court can envision very few circumstances under which it would.
・Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., 277 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
・Brenda Sandburg (The Recorder), "Lemelson Patents Ruled Unenforceable." law.com (September 13, 2005).
・ADAM GOLDMAN (Associated Press), "Appeals court upholds decision invalidating inventor's key patents." FindLaw Intellectual Property Law News (September 12, 2005).
・"Federal Circuit Upholds Unenforceability of Lemelson Patents and Gives Guidance on Unreasonable Delay" IPO'S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES (SEPTEMBER 16, 2005).
・Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, "The Sinking of the Lemelson Submarine Fleet" martindale.com Legal Articles (October 10, 2005).
・Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Assn. v. Lexmark Int'l., 03-16987 D.C. No. CV-01-04626SBA/JL (9th Cir. 2005).
・"11th Circuit Allows Case Asserting Anticompetitive Pioneer/Generic Patent Settlement." Patently-O: Patent Law Blog (Sep 06, 2005).
・Anthony Lin (New York Law Journal), "Coudert Breakup Voted After Merger Talks Fail" law.com (August 19, 2005).
...Ward Bower, a principal at law firm consultancy Altman Weil, noted that Coudert Brothers would be the latest in a string of major firm collapses in recent years, following San Francisco's Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Chicago's Altheimer & Gray and Boston's Testa Hurwitz & Thibeault.
・"Coudert Brothers Votes To Disband Storied Law Firm" WSJ.com (August 19, 2005).
・Darrell Wright, "The Rise and Fall of Coudert Brothers" asialaw (Dec 2005/Jan 2006).
・TAP Pharm. Prod. v. OWL Pharm., Nos. 03-1634 and -1635 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
・Duane Morris LLP, "In Construing Scope of U.S. Patent, Little Weight Given to Prosecution History of Corresponding Foreign Application" martindale.com Legal Articles (October 11, 2005).
Now more than ever I am convinced of the futility, indeed the absurdity, of this court's persistence in adhering to the falsehood that claim construction is a matter of law devoid of any factual component. Because any attempt to fashion a coherent standard under this regime is pointless, as illustrated by our many failed attempts to do so, I dissent.
What we have wrought, instead, is the substitution of a black box, as it so pejoratively has been said of the jury, with the black hole of this court.
...While this court treats the district court as an intake clerk, whose only role is to collect, shuffle and collate evidence, the reality, as revealed by conventional practice, is far different.
...Eloquent words can mask much mischief. The court's opinion today is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic-the orchestra is playing as if nothing is amiss, but the ship is still heading for Davey Jones' locker.
・Phillips v. AWH Corp., Nos. 03-1269, -1286 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
・Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
・Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed.Cir.1998).
・Brenda Sandburg (The Recorder) "Federal Circuit Orders Courts to Rely on Patent Language." law.com (July 14, 2005).
・Greg Aharonian, "Does Phillips v. AWH weaken use of provisional patents?" Internet Patent News Service (July 19, 2005).
・Meredith Martin Addy(The National Law Journal) "Holistic Approach Works for Patent Claim Construction" law.com (July 26, 2005).
・Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
...Although using the word "means" to describe the second baffle, the '395 claims also recite sufficient structure to rebut the presumption that the term is in means-plus-function form. The term "baffle" itself is a structural term. The dictionary definition of the word "baffle" is "a device (as a plate, wall or screen) to deflect, check, or regulate flow." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 124 (1990). Because the term "baffle" itself imparts structure, meaning a surface which deflects air, its use in the claims rebuts the presumption that § 112, § 6 applies.
・Nathaniel Durrance, "HOW THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS MAY SAVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION." 33 AIPLA Q. J. 73 (2005).
・Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
・Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 74 USPQ2d 1801 (U.S. 2005).
"It shall not be an act of infringement to … use … a patented invention … solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products."
・Integra Lifesciences I Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 331 F.3d 860, 66 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The appeals court said that the exemption did not cover experiments undertaken "in the hunt for drugs that may or may not undergo clinical testing for FDA approval," and that the exemption did not "globally embrace all experimental activity that at some point, however attenuated, may lead to an FDA approval process."
・"Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit's Denial of Hatch-Waxman Patent Infringement Exemption for Testing to Obtain FDA Approval." IPO DAILY NEWS (June 14, 2005).
・"Litigation Counsel Explore Unanswered Questions After Merck." 70 Pat. TM&Copyright J. No. 1732 (August 12, 2005).
Keyword: "Allowability of divisionals from divisionals (yes in principle)" . "Validity of second-generation divisional (no)" . "Legitimate expectations (no)"
Headnote: When the validity of a second generation divisional application is examined, the validity of the first generation divisional from which it was divided out must also be examined. If the subject-matter of the first-generation divisional does not comply with Article 76(1), the second-generation divisional derived therefrom is likewise invalid.
・"Revision of Power of Attorney and Assignment Practice." 69 FR 29865 (May 26, 2004).
・"Final Rule Revision of Power of Attorney and Assignment Practice More Information." USPTO (February 12, 2005).
Copyright (C) Yasushi Toyosu, 2001-2006. All rights reserved.

References: § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v.