Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Andrew H. Huber, Louis N. Gastinel, and Pamela J. Bjorkman, No. 05-1101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2005)

Affirmed
Indefiniteness Written Description IPR / PTAB
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 05-1101
Decided
December 20, 2005
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Precedential Opinion
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-1101

(Serial No. 07/819,040)

IN RE ANDREW H. HUBER, LOUIS N. GASTINEL, and PAMELA J. BJORKMAN

DECIDED: December 20, 2005 Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Andrew H. Huber, Louis N. Gastinel, and Pamela J. Bjorkman appeal the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Ex Parte Huber, Appeal No. 07/819,040 (June 30, 2004), which affirmed the rejection of claims 24, 28, 33, and 34 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2; and the rejection of claims 1, 6, 16, and 22-35 as lacking an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. We affirm on the basis of the board’s opinion.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Andrew H. Huber, Louis N. Gastinel, and Pamela J. Bjorkman, No. 05-1101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2005).

Record ID
CAFC-05-1101-20051220
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-05-1101-20051220

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 14, 2026 · Report an error