Monthly Archives: June 2012

Wm. Wrigley Jr., Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC

Docket No. 2011-1140, -1150 NEWMAN (C/D), BRYSON, FOGEL (DJ) June 22, 2012 Brief summary: Wrigley’s patent encompassing chewing gum was found invalid for anticipation and obviousness. Cadbury’s DOE challenge was also rejected because Cadbury had disclaimed a particular type of … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Suong-Hyu Hyon and Masanoria Oka

Docket No. 2011-1239 NEWMAN(D), BRYSON, FOGEL (DJ) May 24, 2012 Brief summary: Reissue claims were held obvious based on two references. The dissent argued that “the prior art contains no ‘apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment