Source: https://www.ptab.us/2016/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:25:39+00:00

Document:
A “preamble may provide context for claim construction, particularly, where … that preamble’s statement of intended use forms the basis for distinguishing the prior art in the patent’s prosecution history.” Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1358-62, 71 USPQ2d 1081, 1084-87 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id.
NTP, 654 F.3d at 1291.
Thus, by stating that “[a]n inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony,” and citing to 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b) in support, the type of corroboration referenced by the court in NTP is the evidence that is set forth in 37 CFR § 1.131(b). We do not understand NTP as mandating some heightened independent corroboration requirement beyond that set forth in the rule as the Requester advocates.
Having determined that claims 1–9 are indefinite, we cannot sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because to do so would require speculative assumptions as to the meaning and scope of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Board erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)).
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
1793 Ex Parte GROVER et al 12360387 - (D) KENNEDY 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.
Appellants' system claims are directed to a "converter configured to convert" (claim 7) and a "system configured to convert" (claim 14). App. Br. 13—16. In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider whether any of the limitations of Appellants' system claims should be interpreted as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. SS 1 12, sixth paragraph. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("The standard [for identifying means-plus-function limitations] is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.").
To benefit from the prior filing date, [a] provisional must provide adequate written description under 35 U. S.C. 112, first paragraph. Trading Technologies Int 'l. v. Espeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, "To serve as an anticipating reference, the reference must enable that which it is asserted to anticipate." Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Educ. and Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
3686 Ex Parte Seifert et al 12567197 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
Labels: donohue , elan pharm. , trading tech.

References: v. 
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 103
 § 103
 v. 
 v. 
 v.