Category Archives: Section 103

OSI v. Apotex – Christmas in October!

Posted on October 11, 2019 by Warren Woessner

In OSI v. Apotex, Appeal no. 2018-1925 (Fed. Cir., October 4, 2019), the panel reversed the PTAB and found that the method of treatment claims in U.S. Pat. No. 6,900,221 were not obvious over a primary reference taken with each … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness, Section 103 | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is the “Blocking Patent” Doctrine Part of the Obviousness Analysis?

Posted on May 17, 2019 by Warren Woessner

Last year, in a lengthy split decision, a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that four “add-on” patents that Acorda owned were invalid as obviousness in view of a number of prior art references (Acorda Ther., Inc. v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Parenteau – PTAB Skips Step One of the Mayo/Alice Test?

Posted on September 14, 2018 by Warren Woessner

In ex parte Ho, the subject of my last post, the PTAB reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims to a population of bone marrow cells obtained by two-stage culturing that expressed or failed to express certain markers. The PTAB wrote … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex Parte Galloway – Berkheimer Meet s. 103 Part II

Posted on June 4, 2018 by Warren Woessner

In Ex parte Galloway, Appeal No. 2017-004696 (PTAB, May 24, 2018), the Board reversed the examiner’s rejections of claims to a method of diagnosing bladder cancer. The method comprised isolating cells from the urine of a subject, dispersing at least … Continue reading →

Posted in PTAB, Section 103 | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment