is a Research Faculty member at the Florida State University. He earned his doctorate degree in Synthetic Organic Chemistry at the Florida State University, where he carried out research on gold(I)-catalyzed cascade cyclizations, gold(I)-catalyzed [3, 3] rearrangements and tin-mediated selective reduction of aromatic enones. He has published his research in several peer-reviewed international quality journals and is also the recipient of MDS (Molecular Design and Synthesis) Award. He has also patented a transition metal-catalyzed method in the USPTO. Currently, he works on multidisciplinary research projects that involve synthetic-organic, physical-organic, organometallic and computational chemistry. Besides research, Dinesh takes keen interest in the US Patent laws and Rules that are concerned with determining patentability of an invention [35 U.S.C 101, 102, 103 and 112]. He is also proficient with most sections of the MPEP and the landmark judgements of the PTAB, the Federal Circuit and the US Supreme Court.
When addressing the issue of generality vs. particularity, we come across a situation where the inventors described the most crucial aspect of the invention, the classification unit, in general terms in the claim. Consequently, in the PTAB’s assessment, the representative claim did not rise above the threshold test of patentability under section 101. But much of what the PTAB seems concerned about relates to disclosure and there is nothing in the PTAB panel decision in Itagaki to suggest that the PTAB reviewed the specification to determine whether the somewhat generally described terms were given particularized meaning by the applicant. It also raises questions about how the PTAB could have properly conducted an obviousness review if the classification unit was so abstract as to be infirm from a patent eligibility point of view.