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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Audatex North America, Inc. v. Mitchell International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | Federal Circuit Orders Rehearing En Banc in Nantkwest v. Matal »

August 30, 2017

Comments

Kevin, is there a link to the decision itself?

If the Board actually found "the specification did not provide a basis for determining what the term "configured" meant .. for both the plumbing and electrical components of the claimed device" why didn't they add or substitute a 112 rejection?

Dan: we will provide it

Paul: likely thought between the indefiniteness and obviousness that was enough.

The claims recited "a spin­-on female pipe connector at an inflow end and a spin-on male pipe connector on an outflow end." There's little else to "configure" as far as the plumbing goes, and the examiner correctly noted that the easy-to-install limitation added no "patentable weight" to the claims. A classic case of trying to claim the results rather than the invention.

What's worse, the prior art showed threaded (i.e. "spin-on") connections. The specification specifically recited "three-quarter inch male [and female] hose bib connector[s]", which as a claim limitation might have been better suited to the arguments being presented: a consumer could easily interpose such a device into an appliance's hose connection. That would have solved the §112 problem, at least.

The perfunctory arguments made against the obviousness rejections had little persuasive force. The closer the prior art, the more closely you have to argue.

"If the Board actually found "the specification did not provide a basis for determining what the term "configured" meant .. for both the plumbing and electrical components of the claimed device" why didn't they add or substitute a 112 rejection?"

Indefiniteness is a 112 rejection...

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

November 2017

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