Ex parte Potekhin: appellants win on 112 written description and obviousness but lose on 101
Ex parte Potekhin cites Vas-Cath on written description.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:13 AM
Monday, January 13, 2014
About Me
- Name: Lawrence B. Ebert
I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.
Previous Posts
- No prima facie case of anticipation in Ex parte Ryan
- "60 Minutes" does Alex Rodriguez/Anthony Bosch on ...
- Judge Ronald M. Whyte affirmed by CAFC in Nazomi case
- Vesicles in Prochlorococcus?
- In Ex parte FITZPATRICK appellant loses on anticip...
- Appellant loses in Ex parte Pantalone
- PTAB brings up KSR automaton in Ex parte Sabic
- Examiner reversed by PTAB in Ex parte Gadkaree
- Mostly a loss for appellant in IPPISCH
- CAFC in Pacific Coast v. Malibu: the principles o...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home