Specifically, the statute mandating that the Board issue a final written decision does not appear to place limits on the Board’s ability to consider invalidity under other grounds. Do you believe that 318(a) does not give us the authority to say those claims are indefinite under 112 2nd[?
We found that the academic literature discloses composition information, however, still the level of details that we required were not described in the literature. We called all the team members involved in the project and brainstormed on what is something that we have not looked at but may give us some hints.
We observed that patents disclosing filters with the gas adsorbing material were abundant.
However, the specific composition requirements were not being met.
He said that Cellz Direct had been held to an improperly high standard of proof as to invalidity—namely,clear and convincing evidence– which in turn “perpetuates these errors and reinvigorates the pre-standard for obviousness, rigidly requiring an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test.
According to the dissent, “all of the claimed elements were present in the prior art.” That is, the prior art taught a single-round freezing process, and the patent claim added no more than repeating this step and measuring cell viability a second time.