E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | 23andMe Named in Class Action Lawsuit »

December 02, 2013

Comments

Another frivolous judgment. If patent office had adopted a misstatement, i suppose neither the patentee might have disclosed a specific amount of antioxidants which would result in reduction of the effectiveness of vitamin B.

Thanks to the applicant for appealling this lazy, shoddy "work" by the BPAI all the way to the Fed. Cir. Of course, this APJ is going to continue to do lousy, lazy work in the future, but at least this time the applicant got justice.

Yeah that's a pretty crazy factaul finding that they made there. Also pretty crazy that the applicant didn't point it out very clearly in his brief. But then, applicants don't do much of a better job than the office in such cases I suppose. Everyone flubbing their way to success in the patent field!

"the Board's factual error regarding the amount of antioxidant present in Jungkeit [also] taints its obviousness conclusion."

Taints? It does more than taint the obviousness conclusion. It blows it up entirely. A correct legal conclusion cannot follow from incorrect factual determinations. It is literally impossible.

I would not say "impossible" AAA JJ, as the two may be so disassociated as to be able to arrive at a correct result with completely fallacious facts (and simply miss out on the real drivers that provide the correct result).

Skeptical,

We'll have to agree to disagree. If the examiner does not correctly resolve the factual inquiry into the scope and content of the prior art, and thus the factual inquiry into the differences between the prior art and the claims, it is literally impossible for the conclusion of obviousness to be correct. Literally impossible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31