David P. Stitzel
Associate
Bar Membership Other Than Virginia
Tel (703) 412-6247

David P. Stitzel

Associate

DAVID (DAVE) P. STITZEL is a patent attorney in the firm’s Chemical Patent Prosecution group. Mr. Stitzel drafts and prosecutes patent applications in diversified technologies within the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology disciplines. His particular emphasis includes batteries, semiconductors, optical devices, pigments, dyes, toners, polymers, adhesives, coatings, glass, ceramics, alloys, catalysts, fuel additives, surfactants, antimicrobials, pesticides, herbicides, cosmetics, small molecules, and therapeutics.

Mr. Stitzel is a former Patent Examiner with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) where he examined patent applications drawn to various technologies including antimicrobials, pesticides, herbicides, pheromones, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, veterinary, drug delivery, and biotechnology.

Mr. Stitzel gained extensive research experience as a scientist in synthetic organic and polymer chemistry while working at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and as a molecular geneticist at Duke University Medical Center.

Mr. Stitzel won the CALI Award for Medical Malpractice, granted by the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction in 1999. The award honors outstanding academic achievement.

CALI Award for Medical Malpractice, granted by the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (1999)

Public Accessibility - The touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or 102(b)
Monday, February 06, 2012

In Ex parte Knight Castro (Appeal 2011-000645; U.S. Application 10/510,454; Decided February 2, 2012) the issue before the Board was whether the Examiner erred in concluding that a reference constituted prior art as a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.

Board Maintains Obviousness Rejection Despite Examiner’s Hindsight Picking and Choosing of Claim Elements From a Large Genus of Disclosed Elements
Wednesday, September 14, 2011

In Ex parte Toussaint (Appeal 2011-000073; U.S. Application 11/735,189; Decided September 7, 2011), the issue before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences was whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the claimed cleaning composition was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the disclosure of Boone (WO 2006/097666).

Ex parte Latorse
Friday, July 01, 2011

In Ex parte Latorse (Appeal 2011-003703; U.S.

All Blogs