Snooki's Homework due 3/23/11

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 20:33, 22 March 2011 by Snooki (talk | contribs) (→‎IN re BAXTER TRAVENOL LABS)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search


952 F.2d 388, C.A.Fed., 1991.

"Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of certain claims in reexamination of United States patent pertaining to invention relating to multiple blood bag system for collecting, processing and storing therapeutic components of whole blood and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Lourie, Circuit Judge, held that patent claims were anticipated by document describing new blood bag system, and therefore were invalid."

In this case Baxter International, Inc. appeals the February 28, 1991, decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board affirmed the rejection of specific claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)as well as the rejection of claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The patent in question claimed a device which was a multi-bag system for "collecting, processing and storing" components of whole blood. Most of the claims of the patent were said to be anticipated because of a document which described a new blood bag system similar to that claimed. The court determined that because of this document (and its use as prior art) the claims were obvious. The court determined that the document maintained prior art status despite describing an experimental procedure. Additionally, the court maintained that in order for unexpected results to be used as evidence of nonobviousness than the results must be unexpected when compared with prior art (this was not the case as results would have been the same as expected from the document discussed).