Categories
Archives
Receive Email Updates
-
-
-
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021 
Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
-
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner
Pages
Archives
Tag Archives: Patent Law
Do You Have Anything To Prove? Frye Fries A Half-Baked Standard
The recent precedential decision, Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-006013 (Bd. App. 2010) reversed the Examiner’s rejection of a claim to a shoe. More importantly, the Board emphasized that the Board on appeal “reviews the particular finding(s) contested by an appellant … Continue reading
Posted in Post-Grant Issues
Tagged court of appeals, Frye, intellectual property, ip, Patent Law, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
ARIAD v. LILLY – A Modest Proposal – Should Screening be Enough?
As the Fed. Cir. prepares to issue an en banc opinion on the existence and role of the written description requirement in section 112, it seems like a time for reflection. After taking the position that enablement should suffice for … Continue reading
Hearing fixed for “Broccoli” and “Tomatoes” cases before the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 0002/07 and G 0001/08
Post from Paul Cole The EPC prohibits patents for essentially biological processes and the referred questions relate to the degree and nature of human technical intervention, which is necessary for that provision not to apply. Case G 0002/07 “Broccoli” concerns EP-B-1 … Continue reading
Yes, Judge Michel, There have been some WDR Appeals!
During oral argument before the Fed. Cir. in Ariad v. Lilly, as reported by Patently-O, the government attorney was pressed for specific evidence that a separate WDR “is necessary for USPTO to perform its examination function”, e.g., that it serves a practical … Continue reading