dating sites no payment - Antedating 102e reference
Nat'l Graphics, Inc., No.2013–00131, 2014 WL 4628897 (P. The Board concluded that Dynamic failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 were anticipated under § 102(e)(2) by Raymond. The Board first found that Dynamic failed to prove that the Raymond patent was entitled to the benefit of its earlier February 15, 2000 provisional filing date, and hence that it was a § 102(e) reference as of its provisional date.
In its petition, Dynamic argued that claims 1, 8, 12, and 14 of the ′196 patent were anticipated by U. The PTO granted the petition in part, and instituted trial on claims 1 and 12. According to the Board, “[t]o be entitled to rely on the February 15, 2000 provisional filing date, [Dynamic] had to establish that it relies on subject matter from Raymond that is present in and supported by its provisional.” Id .
Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
Also represented by John Paul Fredrickson, Sarah M. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC (“Dynamic”) appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review not to reject claims 1 and 12 of National Graphics, Inc.'s (“National Graphics”) U. Patent 6,635,196 (the “′196 patent”) as anticipated under 35 U.
For example, in some jurisdictions, the requirement for industrial applicability, as opposed to usefulness, appears to exclude claims regarding methods of treating humans.