"The Federal Circuit determined that the Board failed to consider arguments in applicants' reply brief that were properly made in response to the examiner's answer, leading to a vacated decision."
"The Examiner found that all elements of a representative claim were anticipated by the primary reference, except for the 'tumbling means' which was disclosed by a secondary reference."
"The Patent Office's discussion of inherency resulted in moving target rejections, as the Board denied reliance on inherency when responding on rehearing."
The Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not adequately consider arguments made by Timothy D. Durance and others in their reply brief regarding a microwave vacuum-drying apparatus. The Board's reliance on structural identity rather than inherency led to moving target rejections. The claims were initially rejected as obvious, but the Federal Circuit remanded the case for further consideration of the applicants' arguments, particularly regarding the tumbling means disclosed in secondary references.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]