JIANQ CHYUN IP GROUP

2012-01-23T15:39:00.000+08:00

2012-01-20T08:51:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kish 11/654,431 ROBERTSON 103(a)/112(2) CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY EXAMINER GRESO, AARON J

“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).

1777 Ex Parte Sirkar et al 11/189,213 NAGUMO 103(a) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP STAMFORD EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kaminsky et al 10/321,356 DROESCH 102(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2494 Ex Parte Kruse 10/571,955 STEPHENS 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco PL EXAMINER ABRISHAMKAR, KAVEH

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lowe 10/847,542 NAPPI 103(a) Sheridan Ross P.C EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2614 Ex Parte Bruelle-Drews 10/528,870 HAHN 102(e) HARMAN - BRINKS HOFER INDY Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione EXAMINER LAO, LUN S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Nevill-Manning 10/608,270 JEFFERY 103(a) 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 12/104,068 GARRIS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DOTE, JANIS L

1722 Ex Parte Shirasagi et al 10/579,211 PAK GAUDETTE HASTINGS PER CURIAM 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER VERDERAME, ANNA L

1723 Ex Parte Maruyama 10/790,759 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

1734 Ex Parte Takada et al 10/509,156 SMITH 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

1745 Ex Parte Sias et al 11/015,845 SMITH 102(a)/102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1762 Ex Parte Miller et al 11/129,121 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(1) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

1781 Ex Parte Ootsuka et al 10/472,033 OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STULII, VERA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/992,398 ROBERTSON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Barth et al 11/932,170 WINSOR 103(a) PATTERSON THUENTE CHRISTENSEN PEDERSEN, P.A. EXAMINER STULTZ, JESSICA T

2834 Ex Parte Zafferri 11/558,274 BAUMEISTER 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER DESAI, NAISHADH N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Naas et al 10/828,497 KIM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11/352,357 COCKS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chane et al 10/306,752 POTHIER 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

2012-01-19T08:41:00.006+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Huey et al 11/592,477 PRATS 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER RAO, SAVITHA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Barkac et al 11/113,682 PAK Concurring SMITH 102(e)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/290,895 FRAHM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2164 Ex Parte Singh 10/882,721 FRAHM 101/103(a)/112(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 Ex Parte Lagnado et al 11/344,296 CHANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KARACSONY, ROBERT

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Brosius et al 11/044,708 HOELTER 102(e) LAW OFFICE OF DUANE S. KOBAYASHI EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M

The Examiner further notes that both claims 10 and 31 contain ‘if’ clauses in their limitations (b) and (c) and states that they “are optional statements” such that they “do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted” (Ans. 8-9, 13 citing MPEP § 2106 II C and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006))....

Regarding the “if” clauses found in limitations (b) and (c) of claims 10 and 31, we are not persuaded that these clauses are optional statements as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9, 13). Optional statements include those limitations “stated in the permissive form ‘may’” as in Johnston (“said wall may be smooth”) and “do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted” (Johnston 435 F.3d at 1384). Conditional statements, on the other hand, leave open the situation where the condition is not satisfied; but if the condition is satisfied, then a stated action occurs (Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp, 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In Altiris, the court stated that “[t]he body of the claims, by using conditional language in the ‘booting normally’ step (‘if said testing step indicates a normal boot sequence’) indicates that the ‘testing’ step must occur before the computer boots normally” (Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1372). The court continued stating that “[i]t is the result of this ‘testing’ step that determines whether the automation boot sequence….occurs, or whether the ‘booting normally’ step occurs” (Id.). This is consistent with MPEP § 2106 II C relied on by the Examiner which states “[l]anguage that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed…does not limit the scope of a claim” (italics added). Here, limitations (b) and (c) are not optional because if their condition is satisfied, these limitations require certain steps to be performed. For example, if the mobile terminal is in view of a communication satellite, then transmission of the location data to the satellite occurs and if the mobile terminal is in view of a more terrestrial cellular mobile telephone network, then transmission of the location data to a cell tower occurs. We thus disagree with the Examiner that limitations (b) and (c) of claim 10 are optional (i.e. are stated in the permissive form) as found in Johnston.

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Wickramanayake 11/239,728 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte MONSHEIMER et al 11/671,820 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BROWN II, DAVID N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Keshavmurthy et al 10/623,330 DROESCH 102(b)/102(e) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER BARNES-BULLOCK, CRYSTAL JOY

2159 Ex Parte Wilhelm 11/431,685 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

2173 Ex Parte Seurig et al 11/315,381 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2187 Ex Parte Symanczyk et al 11/133,716 DROESCH 103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/914,451 HAHN 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER CHAN, RICHARD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Arndt et al 10/927,949 DANG 102(b)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B

2822 Ex Parte Matsunami 11/426,157 DANG 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER PATTON, PAUL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte McEwen et al 11/153,667 GRIMES 103(a) HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Taieb et al 11/426,100 JEFFERY 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TILLERY, RASHAWN N

2012-01-18T09:03:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11/150,861 GRIMES ADAMS Dissenting PRATS 103(a) Workman Nydegger / INVENTION SCIENCE FUND EXAMINER DUTT, ADITI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Talwar 11/551,550 COLAIANNI FRANKLIN OWENS 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER YOON, KEVIN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Opaterny 11/114,399 HUGHES BOALICK MACDONALD 102(b) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER BUCKINGHAM, KELLYE DEE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Nastacio et al 10/809,175 NAPPI DESHPANDE DROESCH 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LINDSEY, MATTHEW S

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Keller et al 09/842,346 NAPPI HAHN MACDONALD 102(e)/103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Welbourne 11/318,279 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Dascenzo Intellectual Property Law, P.C. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Da Silva et al 11/235,035 SPAHN 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/111,240 ADAMS 102(a)/103(a) C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Best et al 09/747,063 POTHIER WINSOR ZECHER 103(a) 103(a)/112(1) SUGHRUE MION PLLC USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2184 Ex Parte Haines et al 11/348,636 RUGGIERO BAUMEISTER HOFF 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER TSENG, CHENG YUAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Tsuchiyama et al 10/580,211 GREENHUT CALVE HOELTER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER SEVERSON, JEREMY R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Gueret 11/320,557 6,669,389 KAUFFMAN BARRETT SAINDON 251/102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN N

The subject matter of claim 204 is not all magnetic particles; rather, claim 204 covers magnetic particles that are part of a mascara product. Therefore, the preamble serves to further define the structure of the article claimed. See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951).

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

3762 Ex Parte Hanson et al 10/531,359 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Studin et al 11/788,959 ADAMS 103(a) Stuart D. Frenkel Frenkel & Associates EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Vacassy et al 11/491,612 COLAIANNI FRANKLIN OWENS 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRISTIE, ROSS J

1766 Ex Parte Thomas et al 12/281,023 GARRIS OWENS WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

1774 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/699,770 FRANKLIN COLAIANNI WARREN 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER RAMDHANIE, BOBBY

1776 Ex Parte Broske et al 11/254,964 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Dudley et al 10/860,287 KIM 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER
GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Hansen et al 11/122,397 ADAMS SCHEINER WALSH 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER COLELLO, ERIN L

3761 Ex Parte Osborn et al 10/860,910 FRANKLIN FREDMAN GREEN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3733 Ex Parte 7128744 et al SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SYNTHES (U.S.A) Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,465 and 90/009,377 10/665,505 SONG LEBOVITZ ROBERTSON 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP Third Party Requester ROBERT A, KING HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER SWIGER III, JAMES L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 Ex Parte 7161506 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. 95/000,479 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner, Appellant Patent Owner STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOXX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MICHAEL A. MESSINA, ESQ. MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH V

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2155 Ex Parte 7321937 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,466 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOXX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 Ex Parte 7378992 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,478 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH V

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 Ex Parte 6624761 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,464 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MICHAEL A. MESSINA, ESQ. MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EXAMINER WAMSLEY, PATRICK G

2012-01-16T08:53:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Theobald et al 11/421,615 FREDMAN McCOLLUM PRATS 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Kertesz 11/299,345 NAGUMO HANLON KRATZ 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

1788 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/152,984 HASTINGS GAUDETTE NAGUMO 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Avramoff et al 10/575,809 McCOLLUM FREDMAN SCHEINER 103(a)/112(1) Graeser Associates International Inc. EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Lagrange et al 10/525,132 BAUMEISTER HAHN POTHIER 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER BALI, VIKKRAM

REHEARING

GRANTED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/442,765 OWENS GARRIS GUEST 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

2012-01-13T08:48:00.006+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Mikhail et al 11/196,632 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER YANCHUK, STEPHEN J

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Sturm 11/926,244 WINSOR 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER WANG, JACK K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Blette et al 10/939,540 SPAHN 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER POON, PETER M

See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.).

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . 2111, 2111.01

See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.).

See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).

3644 Ex Parte Freidell 11/338,221 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER WILLIAMS, MONICA L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Cameron et al 10/517,906 GARRIS 103(a) 103(a) The BOC Group, Inc. EXAMINER YANG, JIE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART & REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3749 Ex Parte 6886553 et al Ex parte HEATMAX, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,869 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WILLIAM L. BROOKS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE GROUPEXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER YEUNG, JAMES C

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Pickering 11/445,360 HASTINGS 103(a) MDIP LLC EXAMINER VAJDA, PETER L

1747 Ex Parte Ueyoko et al 11/592,893 KATZ 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1778 Ex Parte Benevides et al 11/211,066 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a) Waters Technologies Corporation EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Egnor et al 11/024,967 SMITH 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

2179 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/743,476 ZECHER 102(b) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LO, WEILUN

2186 Ex Parte Kuwata 11/372,198 DANG 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER DUDEK JR, EDWARD J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Shih et al 10/703,762 RUGGIERO 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SMOOT, STEPHEN W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Gaetano 10/641,853 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103(a) MITEL NETWORKS CORPORATION EXAMINER AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Venturelli 10/538,913 GREEN 103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

3751 Ex Parte Aylward 11/421,624 BAHR 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER NIESZ, JASON KAROL

REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Golden 11/095,355 HOELTER 102(b) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER MAI, HAO D

2012-01-12T09:14:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Heath 11/112,288 KIM 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Starkweather and Associates EXAMINER AMSDELL, DANA

3629 Ex Parte Bohle 10/772,081 FETTING 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER SENSENIG, SHAUN D

3629 Ex Parte Jannott et al 10/960,834 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER CUMARASEGARAN, VERN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Pai et al 10/982,385 PRATS 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

Thus, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

3732 Ex Parte Jia et al 11/676,807 MILLS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, RALPH A

3733 Ex Parte Burgess et al 11/264,522 FREDMAN 102(a)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER CARTER, TARA ROSE E

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3672 Ex Parte 7096977 et al Varco I/P, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant v. Tesco Corporation Requester 95/000,162 11/040,453 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: THE MATTHEWS FIRM THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH LLP (3RD PTY REQ) EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER NEUDER, WILLIAM P

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2494 Ex Parte Hidalgo et al 09/859,123 MacDONALD 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, NADIA

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Wu et al 10/603,302 MacDONALD 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Slater et al 10/916,113 SAADAT 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER QUACH, TUAN N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Moharram 10/935,392 GREEN 103(a) OMAYMA E. MOHARRAM EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Carroll 11/198,386 HORNER 103(a) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER GEDEON, BRIAN T

2012-01-11T08:47:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Carson et al 10/510,865 GAUDETTE 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

Evidence of obviousness must come from the prior art, not the applicant’s own disclosure. In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness,” the fact finder “must articulate [his or her] reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.” Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/132,658 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11/444,004 FREDMAN 102(b) Covidien EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Melzak et al 10/914,468 ROBERTSON 103(a) 103(a) DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER PHAM, LONG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/556,322 GREEN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Trabold et al 12/016,014 OWENS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10/830,917 DANG 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2185 Ex Parte Loafman 11/778,054 JEFFERY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kataoka 11/291,129 WINSOR 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Tolbert 10/998,213 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE ELAINE

3762 Ex Parte Haller et al 11/221,095 FREDMAN 103(a) Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP (Boston Scientific) EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

2012-01-10T09:39:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Yong 11/191,300 GARRIS 103(a) WALTER A. HACKLER, Ph.D. EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Huang 10/787,597 PETRAVICK 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HU, KANG

3721 Ex Parte Wenchell et al 10/490,790 ADAMS 102(b) Paul R Audet U.S. Surgical, a division of Tyco Healthcare Group EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3745 Ex Parte Cunha et al 11/339,921 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER EDGAR, RICHARD A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Rai et al 11/091,560 DANG 103(a) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER CHO, UN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Dorn 10/552,886 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) C. R. Bard, Inc. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. EXAMINER BLATT, ERIC D

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6543911 et al VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. Requester and Appellant v. LIGHT TRANSFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,410 COCKS 102(b) PATENT OWNER: Harold McGurk The Law Office of Clay McGurk THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER ALAVI, ALI

The determination by an Examiner that a given prior art reference does not raise a substantial new question of patentability is a non-appealable determination which does not represent a final decision on the patentability of a claim in conjunction with the particular involved prior art reference. See Belkin Int’l, Inc. v. OptimumPath, LLC, Appeal No. 2011-3697 (BPAI Mar. 30, 2011) (informative opinion).

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kafrissen et al 11/466,504 PRATS 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

1635 Ex Parte WILLIAMS et al 09/410,462 McCOLLUM 102(e) ONYX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. EXAMINER ANGELL, JON E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte HOWARD 12/013,337 KATZ 103(a) GABLE & GOTWALS EXAMINER SMITH, PRESTON

See American Permahedge, Inc. v. Barcana, Inc., 105 F.3d 1441, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claims, not the specific embodiments, define the scope of protection.”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Belknap et al 09/986,248 HOMERE 103(a) SUGHRUE MION PLLC USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Page et al 10/095,413 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

2476 Ex Parte Vesuna et al 10/837,439 SAADAT 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER HO, CHUONG T

2836 Ex Parte Sedlak et al 10/701,058 KRIVAK 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PARRIES, DRU M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Chiappetta et al 10/431,723 FETTING 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte SHAH 09/403,796 KAUFFMAN 103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

3733 Ex Parte Yuksel et al 09/983,537 FREDMAN 102(b) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER PHILOGENE, PEDRO

3734 Ex Parte Sekine et al 11/375, 946 FREDMAN 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER BLATT, ERIC D

3737 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/454,786 ADAMS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M

3754 Ex Parte Salemme 11/012,560 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER

3762 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11/191,740 ADAMS 103(a) CYBERONICS, INC. EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

3772 Ex Parte Michelson 11/410,609 BAHR 102(b) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

2012-01-09T08:53:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Schliephacke et al 10/830,172 GUEST 103(a) Briscoe, Kurt G. Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA EXAMINER SELLS, JAMES D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Szymonski et al 11/216,468 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER KUMAR, RAKESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Vinegar et al 11/112,881 McCARTHY 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIMRED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hess et al 11/541,098 CALVE 103(a) 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Li et al 10/936,239 TIMM 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Samn 10/392,768 ROBERTSON 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

To find good cause on this basis would allow a party to allege good cause at any time by retaining new counsel. Parties are bound by the conduct of prior counsel. See Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v Brunswick Assoc., 507 U.S. 380, 396-97 (1993).

2012-01-06T09:35:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Moran et al 11/247,622 GAUDETTE 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

see also, Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he analysis that ‘should be made explicit’ refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis.”).

1773 Ex Parte Tipler et al 11/251,187 GARRIS 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER SASAKI, SHOGO

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Collins et al 12/399,681 FREDMAN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M

1618 Ex Parte Snyder et al 10/284,960 GRIMES 103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1632 Ex Parte Karatzas et al 10/326,892 WALSH dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 102(e)/103(a) Elliot M. Olstein Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gifillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein EXAMINER BERTOGLIO, VALARIE E

1633 Ex Parte Birch et al 10/501,777 GRIMES 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D

1655 Ex Parte Tsygankov 10/907,749 FREDMAN 103(a) Smith & Hopen, P.A. EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Vernon et al 11/130,713 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HECKERT, JASON MARK

1725 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10/758,843 GAUDETTE 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Blanton et al 11/593,762 POTHIER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WARN PARTNERS, P.C. EXAMINER HUYNH, KIM T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Goren et al 11/346,722 HORNER 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER ISSING, GREGORY C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Kenealy et al 11/820,831 SCHEINER 103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K

2012-01-05T09:10:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Chow et al 11/285,815 GREEN 102(b) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER NIEBAUER, RONALD T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Brust et al 12/029,929 McKELVEY 102(a)/103(a)/double patenting EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER VALDEZ, DEVE E

Anticipation requires that a prior art reference (Szajeski I in this appeal) describe all the elements of the claim within the four corners of the reference arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim. Net MoneyIN Inc. v. VeriSign Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

1783 Ex Parte Buhay et al 11/085,330 HASTINGS 103(a) Andrew C. Siminerio, Esq. PPG Industries, Inc. EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Chow et al 11/670,714 NAPPI 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER TRICE, KIMBERLY N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Schellstede 11/270,685 LEE dissenting TORCZON 103(a) Roy Kiesel Ford Doody & Thurmon EXAMINER LU, JIPING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/396,256 COLAIANNI 102(b) 102(b) IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1645 Ex Parte 6846477 et al 90/008,751 10/174,701 LEBOVITZ 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.111-1.113 and 1.550 PFIZER INC Mary J Hosley EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER SWARTZ, RODNEY P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Raschke et al 09/844,662 GRIMES 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/804,688 NAPPI 102(b) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER YEN, ERIC L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Jollenbeck et al 11/924,434 FRAHM 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER VORTMAN, ANATOLY

2012-01-04T09:40:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kumar et al 10/917,988 ZECHER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

2457 Ex Parte Singerle 10/808,166 GONSALVES 102(b) Authenticatid Corp. EXAMINER RUBIN, BLAKE J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,820 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,840 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Bomers 10/699,968 GONSALVES 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Perez-Cruet 11/408,571 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3672 Ex Parte 5,894,897 et al 90/010,342 08/708,396 SONG 103(a) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) Third Party Requester: Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER BAGNELL, DAVID J

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Colombo et al 10/496,327 GRIMES 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER AHMED, HASAN SYED

Cf. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.”).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . 2111.02

1627 Ex Parte Rennie et al 10/979,498 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CARTER, KENDRA D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Trefethren et al 11/414,101 TIMM 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER OHERN, BRENT T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Thomas 11/363,234 ZECHER 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Wall et al 12/019,399 STEPHENS 103(a) TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC EXAMINER EDWARDS JR, TIMOTHY

The Examiner may take notice of facts or common knowledge in the art which are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). To challenge the Examiner's notice, Appellants must present evidence to the contrary. In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232 (CCPA 1961) (considering challenge to the taking of judicial notice by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board).

Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.03

Knapp Monarch Co., In re, 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Fujii et al 10/410,434 GONSALVES 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER NORRIS, JEREMY C

2858 Ex Parte Guang et al 10/863,920 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER BOATENG, ALEXIS ASIEDUA

2012-01-02T09:25:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Bennett et al 10/921,347 WARREN 103(a) Whitham, Curtis & Christofferson, P.C. EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1733 Ex Parte Myneni et al 11/099,247 PAK 103(a) The Jackson Patent Group EXAMINER YANG, JIE

1747 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/998,563 LORIN 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

Since “[o]bviousness can not be established by hindsight combination to produce the claimed invention,” In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998), we find that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established and, accordingly, we reverse the rejection.

Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

1762 Ex Parte Weitzel et al 10/692,887 WARREN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Iversen et al 11/377,168 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HANH N

REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Ciaburro et al 09/912,167 KRIVAK 103(a) K&A ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LEE, JOHN J

2011-12-30T08:45:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Rodriguez-Kabana et al 11/864,148 McCOLLUM 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER KLINKEL, KORTNEY L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Kane 11/630,603 COLAIANNI 103(a) Mallinckrodt Inc EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1788 Ex Parte Song 11/141,236 PAK 103(a) EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER DESAI, ANISH P

Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Urmston et al 10/984,678 HUGHES 102(b) VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND EMC CORPORATION EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/999,647 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

2486 Ex Parte Valente 10/478,731 DILLON 103(a) Philips Electronics North America Corporation EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/879,607 KRIVAK 103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EXAMINER BOLOURCHI, NADER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Sturm 11/753,204 KERINS 103(a) STURM & FIX LLP EXAMINER AVILA, STEPHEN P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Takiar et al 11/321,426 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) VIERRA MAGEN/SANDISK CORPORATION EXAMINER PERREAULT, ANDREW D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte De Leys et al 11/341,363 SCHEINER 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Rolly 11/510,350 COLAIANNI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1766 Ex Parte Todd et al 11/147,093 COLAIANNI 102(b)/102(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Saho et al 11/453,076 CALVE 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER
OLSON, LARS A

3636 Ex Parte Venegas 10/827,975 HORNER 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YIP, WINNIE S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Krenn et al 10/940,420 BROWN 112(1)/103(a) TRASKBRITT, P.C. / SHUFFLE MASTER EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3761 Ex Parte Donovan 11/584,145 SCHEINER 103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

2011-12-29T08:46:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Wachs 11/098,775 SCHEINER 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER STEELE, AMBER D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Fuller et al 11/053,714 TIMM 103(a) CARY W. BROOKS General Motors Corporation EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/733,016 HOFF 103(a) THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER LE, DEBBIE M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/219,045 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ATALA, JAMIE JO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,846 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF

3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,847 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Shepard et al 10/747,420 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Martens et al 11/239,125 BARRETT 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Jorgensen et al 11/129,953 FRANKLIN 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ARIANI, KADE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,467 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK A

2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10/335,331 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Marshall et al 09/969,000 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Intellectual Property and Licensing NXP B.V. EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL

2625 Ex Parte Brown 10/255,631 KRIVAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 11/494,206 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER SINCLAIR, DAVID M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Murakami 10/558,321 CRAWFORD 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3727 Ex Parte Hsu 11/479,255 HORNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

[W]e employ a lower threshold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts. In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

The USPTO, as the sole agency vested with the authority to grant exclusionary rights to inventors for patentable inventions, has a duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope. Such patents exact a cost on society due to their ambiguity that is not commensurate with the benefit that the public gains from disclosure of the invention. The USPTO is justified in using a lower threshold showing of ambiguity to support a finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent.

Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

2011-12-28T08:39:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Myatt 10/263,516 FRANKLIN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DRISCOLL, LORA E BARNHART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Seth et al 10/836,560 FRANKLIN 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 10/673,812 HOFF 103(a) RSW IP Law EXAMINER DENNISON, JERRY B

2469 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/769,327 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Ballai 10/235,073 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER PHUONG, DAI

2618 Ex Parte Cho 10/226,126 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Benito et al 10/492,598 MOHANTY 103(a) KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. EXAMINER HOLLY, JOHN H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Mills et al 10/866,972 LEE 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

3767 Ex Parte Pope et al 10/700,738 ASTORINO 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Poliakoff 11/089,501 ASTORINO 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

3686 Ex Parte Gordon 10/153,883 MOHANTY 103(a) 103(a) Christian C. Michel Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Miura et al 11/509,475 FRANKLIN 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3682 Ex Parte 6135904 et al Ex parte RYAN G. GUTHRIE Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,944 09/181,368 DELMENDO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MICHAEL TAVELLA THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DELAND LAW OFFICE EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER HANNON, THOMAS R

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50 (1966) (“Nor is the Government’s contention that the electrodes of
Adams were mere substitutions of pre-existing battery designs supported by the prior art.”).

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966). . . . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.05, 2143.01, 2145

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/997,700 FREDMAN 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER VOGEL, NANCY TREPTOW

1646 Ex Parte Hill et al 12/436,508 FREDMAN 102(b) USDA, ARS, OTT EXAMINER MERTZ, PREMA MARIA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Banatwala et al 10/734,348 DIXON nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2493 Ex Parte Blakley et al 10/334,539 DANG 103(a) IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2882 Ex Parte Coppola 10/568,656 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER LIU, MICHAEL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle 11/956,533 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Freedman 11/220,300 KERINS 251 103(a)/251/112(1) Philip D. Freedman PC EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M

DISMISSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Haidar 10/560,804 KATZ 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LADAS & PARRY LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Goldstein et al 10/691,928 WALSH 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

2011-12-26T08:44:00.005+08:00

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lunev et al 11/293,576 HOFF 103(a) CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 11/371,035 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD

3771 Ex Parte Dunkley et al 10/821,624 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Chan et al 10/403,551 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J

We recognize that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but is proper so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). However, Appellants do not meaningfully explain how the determination of obviousness is based upon knowledge gleaned only from Appellants’ Specification.

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2684 Ex Parte 7043283 et al Ex parte BLACK & DECKER INC. 90/010,906 & 90/010,909 10/758,492 SIU 103(a) Appellant FOR PATENT OWNER: BLACK & DECKER, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MAX SHAFTAL PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY, LTD. EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER GANTT, ALAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2618 Ex Parte 7466974 et al Ex parte BLACK & DECKER INC. 90/010,902 & 90/010,908 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION Third Party Requester: PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY LTD. EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER PHU, SANH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Grubb 10/602,945 PAK 103(a) ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE

1734 Ex Parte Muha et al 11/218,618 GUEST 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Mahony et al 10/606,677 HAHN 112(1)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - GMG EXAMINER LI, SHI K

REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle 12/057,127 BROWN 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

2011-12-23T09:16:00.002+08:00

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Morgal 10/821,593 KRATZ 103(a) William C. Boling, Esq. EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M

1734 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/722,789 GUEST 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER SLIFKA, SARAH A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Leistner et al 11/257,298 KERINS 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) EXAMINER TRIEU, THAI BA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Kroth et al 10/499,540 SAADAT 103(a) 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/510,358 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP EXAMINER BROWE, DAVID

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 10/869,388 HUGHES 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER DINH, NGOC V

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Piccionelli et al 11/091,972 STEPHENS 103(a) Greg Piccionelli Piccionelli & Sarno EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Wyers v Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).

2625 Ex Parte Glemser et al 10/207,558 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HANG, VU B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Nolan et al 11/431,044 GREENHUT 103(a) BARBARA K. NOLAN EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

2011-12-22T08:52:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Neubardt 11/091,089 SCHEINER 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF LEO ZUCKER EXAMINER FOLEY, SHANON A

1651 Ex Parte Tyszka et al 11/009,901 PRATS 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

Thus, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1656 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/187,394 SCHEINER 103(a) OCCHIUTI ROHLICEK & TSAO, LLP EXAMINER CARLSON, KAREN C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Linden et al 10/501,225 ROBERTSON 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1781 Ex Parte Horiuchi et al 10/537,493 PRATS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Hamann et al 11/519,393 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. EXAMINER KIM, KIHO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,700 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Hodes 10/788,532 DROESCH 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 ALAN S. HODES EXAMINER HASAN, SYED HAROON

Our reviewing courts have “refused to find processes patentable when they merely claimed a mental process standing alone and untied to another category of statutory subject matter even when a practical application was claimed.” In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc); accord CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2161 Ex Parte Rabaioli 10/381,808 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Sheffield et al 11/945,082 BROWN 103(a) 103(a) Parks IP Law LLC EXAMINER WOOD, KIMBERLY T

3685 Ex Parte Bly et al 09/990,911 BARRY 101/112(2) 101/103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC EXAMINER NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A

3693 Ex Parte Subbu et al 10/781,805 LORIN 103(a) 101 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Jimenez 10/444,136 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, LAURA MICHELLE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3619 Ex Parte 6325414 et al ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ 95/001,011 90/008,348 SONG 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner: BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requester: BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON, & LIONE EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER TO, TOAN C

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex Parte 6373537 et al Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Third Party Requester: BRUCE L. LAGERMAN EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3712 Ex Parte 6,546,924 et al Ex parte ProBatter Sports, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/010,151 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) 112(1) FOR PATENT OWNER: GRIMES & BATTERSBY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WOODARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY MCNETT & HENRY LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Abraham 10/995,061 FRANKLIN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

1652 Ex Parte Koeberl et al 10/761,530 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

1653 Ex Parte Consigny et al 11/170,750 ADAMS 112(1) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER FORD, ALLISON M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Johansson 10/558,832 PAK 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1763 Ex Parte Bernard et al 11/300,995 WARREN 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-AI N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/186,701 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) C/O AMY PATTILLO EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2185 Ex Parte Gold et al 10/684,001 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2186 Ex Parte Alderegula et al 11/124,745 LUCAS 103(a) IBM (RPS-BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DUDEK JR, EDWARD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Renbarger 10/837,807 PETRAVICK 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

2011-12-21T08:51:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/115,529 SMITH 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

1765 Ex Parte Kriegel et al 11/119,668 HASTINGS 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

1772 Ex Parte Robotti et al 11/064,575 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1775 Ex Parte Muller-Hartmann et al 10/475,840 COLAIANNI 103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Betts et al 11/132,648 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2166 Ex Parte Pauly 10/432,769 HOFF 103(a) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN

2174 Ex Parte Hackworth 09/862,949 HOFF 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER KE, PENG

2193 Ex Parte Lutkemeyer 11/029,990 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER NGO, CHUONG D

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ozen 10/444,337 DANG 102(e) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER WANG, TED M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte von Blucher 10/834,776 BAHR 103(a) Cozen O'Connor EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

3775 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 10/357,449 GREENHUT 102(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

3781 Ex Parte Lummis et al 10/758,459 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) RUSSELL H. WALKER WALKER, McKENZIE & WALKER, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, TRI M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte McLean et al 11/684,669 HASTINGS 102(b) 102(b) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/671,938 ROBERTSON 101/112(2)/103(a) 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL

With respect to the judicially created “abstract idea” exception, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently stated that it “does ‘not presume to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.’” Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

REEXAMINATION

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5631946 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,492 90/006,679 08/442,112 Per Curiam 103(a) 103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2744 Ex Parte 6067451 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,494 90/006,681 90/007,726 09/161,462 Per Curiam 103(a)/102(b) 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5438611 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,676 08/247,466 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5819172 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,493 90/006,680 90/007,735 08/844,957 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5625670 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/007,723 90/006,678 90/006,491 08/443,430 Per Curiam 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) /112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5436960 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,533 90/006,675 90/007,731 07/702,939 Per Curiam 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5479472 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,677 07/702,938 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) Per Curiam COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Krishnan et al 10/980,478 FREDMAN 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S

1617 Ex Parte Cromack et al 10/526,755 FREDMAN 102(b) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER AZPURU, CARLOS A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/940,538 SMITH 103(a) Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1774 Ex Parte Patch 10/984,154 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) AKERMAN SENTERFITT EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1788 Ex Parte Melvin 11/508,518 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) Clifford G. Frayne EXAMINER
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Firman 10/624,160 HUGHES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER
TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan et al 10/040,173 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN

2612 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/315,455 DANG 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, KERRI L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Greer et al 10/908,899 MOHANTY 103(a) SMITH RISLEY TEMPEL SANTOS LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAI

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K

2011-12-20T08:57:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Haldar et al 11/290,715 GREEN 103(a) Attn: William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER BERRIOS, JENNIFER A

1648 Ex Parte Kyle 11/449,829 SCHEINER 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/341,355 SMITH 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

1732 Ex Parte Frenzel et al 10/539,781 KATZ 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/319,093 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

1778 Ex Parte Dal Maso et al 10/994,405 SMITH 103(a) Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1788 Ex Parte Weiner et al 11/089,435 TIMM 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte MacHeffner 10/915,496 COURTENAY 103(a) MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 10/491,429 SCHAFER 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp 11/185,701 McCARTHY 101/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

A rejection for anticipation-type double patenting requires a “two-way analysis:” two claims do not claim the same invention if one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . . . 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp et al 11/185,702 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3767 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12/043,861 6,569,118 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) STEPHEN A GRATTON EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Loch et al 10/103,426 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/738,536 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/782,687 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

1732 Ex Parte McInnes et al 11/526,462 HANLON 103(a) 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER QIAN, YUN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Strang 10/673,506 HOFF 103(a) 101 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SIEK, VUTHE

2857 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/786,980 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 103(a) General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LE, JOHN H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Velikyan et al 10/552,206 McCOLLUM 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte DeBiccari et al 11/019,871 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1724 Ex Parte Aigner et al 10/478,751 ROBERTSON 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1724 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/776,223 WARREN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11/242,908 SMITH 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1763 Ex Parte Evers 12/166,534 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/264,876 BARRY 101/102(e) LNG/LSI Joint Customer Number C/O Luedeka, Neely & Graham, P.C. EXAMINER PHAN, THAI Q

"[R]egardless of what statutory category ('process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim's language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patenteligibility purposes." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 11/037,786 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Borgerding et al 11/362,548 HORNER 103(a) Hildebrand, Christa Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Libby et al 10/612,782 KIM 103(a) Mr. Tim F. Williams Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

3742 Ex Parte Chenier et al 10/651,949 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) SMART & BIGGAR EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

3779 Ex Parte Dalle et al 10/483,220 ASTORINO 103(a) LEVINE & MANDELBAUM EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

2011-12-19T08:49:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/795,012 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER WHALEY, PABLO S

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Rantalainen 10/043,926 STEPHENS 103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Dennison 11/262,246 RUGGIERO 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LULIS, MICHAEL P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/790,604 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. EXAMINER DEBERADINIS, ROBERT L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2839 Ex Parte 6521831 et al BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent, Appellant v. ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,196 09/941,341 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: THE JACKSON PATENT GROUP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER MICHAEL J. STRAUSS MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER NASRI, JAVAID H

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Bruner et al 11/585,458 KATZ 103(a) William J. Uhl EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1746 Ex Parte Thorson et al 11/361,288 TIMM 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/173,098 FRAHM 103(a) BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP EXAMINER TAKELE, MESEKER

See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962))(confirming the longstanding interpretation that the teachings of a reference may be taken in combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the claimed invention even though the patent does not specifically disclose certain features.).

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Vornsand 09/852,883 RUGGIERO 103(a) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lengning et al 11/076,255 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAI T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Gerfast 10/703,656 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) STEN R. GERFAST EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRAN N

2892 Ex Parte Bronner et al 11/308,604 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP EXAMINER TRICE, KIMBERLY N

2011-12-16T08:46:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Pilgaard et al 10/490,278 McCOLLUM 103(a) COLOPLAST A/S EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Trossman et al 10/947,768 DILLON 103(a)/101 LEE LAW, PLLC IBM CUSTOMER NUMBER EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2448 Ex Parte Brownholtz et al 10/894,526 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

2478 Ex Parte Barda 10/836,520 CHEN 102(b) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER ALI, FARHAD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Coss et al 10/094,550 KRIVAK 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/794,334 WALSH 103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER WHALEY, PABLO S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Asaro et al 10/074,064 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) VEDDER PRICE P.C. EXAMINER MYERS, PAUL R

2185 Ex Parte Challener et al 11/068,322 DESHPANDE 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/457,908 FRAHM 103(a) 101 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. BOX IBM EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Balzer et al 11/480,618 BAHR 103(a) 103(a) MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC AND FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Weers et al 10/751,342 WALSH 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NOVARTIS EXAMINER CARTER, KENDRA D

1644 Ex Parte Peritt et al 11/018,240 McCOLLUM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SKELDING, ZACHARY S

1645 Ex Parte Chu 11/325,556 FRANKLIN 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER GANGLE, BRIAN J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Breese 10/774,161 GARRIS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Raith et al 11/098,292 DESHPANDE 102(b)/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D

2172 Ex Parte Schmitt 10/854,170 COURTENAY 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D

Appellant’s argued limitation of “performing a query on a database for determining names of one or more predefined parameter sets for the customization object” (claim 1) does not positively recite that any parameter set names are actually determined. Our reviewing court guides that “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Willins et al 11/137,003 HAHN 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER LAI, DANIEL

2618 Ex Parte Perlman 10/395,749 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. BEREZNAK EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Hirotsu 10/719,321 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

3788 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11/132,964 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE WEINTRAUB GROUP, P.L.C. EXAMINER PICKETT, JOHN G

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM

2011-12-15T08:55:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Kumar T.K. et al 11/800,317 GRIMES 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Henning 12/124,249 GUEST 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Han 10/844,817 WINSOR 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte DaCosta et al 10/723,778 DESHPANDE 112(1)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Jeon et al 10/864,499 ROBERTSON 103(a) LEE & MORSE, P.C. EXAMINER
WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Maulden et al 11/688,389 HORNER 103(a) Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Noyes 11/206,598 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) PATRICK R. SCANLON
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3715 Ex Parte Bardige et al 11/099,077 KIM 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA EXAMINER
HU, KANG

3777 Ex Parte Oliver et al 10/646,222 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Bagley et al 11/314,984 POTHIER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HOCKER, JOHN P

2183 Ex Parte Jourdan et al 09/749,405 DESHPANDE 102(b)/103(a) Gerbera/BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5577100 et al Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,064 TURNER 112(1)/102(e)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON, PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER MAUNG, NAY AUNG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Wijlaars et al 10/564,674 ADAMS 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER HELM, CARALYNNE E

1628 Ex Parte Yankner et al 11/232,844 SCHEINER 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER ZAREK, PAUL E

1636 Ex Parte Gellman et al 11/482,638 PRATS 102(b) Intellectual Property Dept./Dewitt Ross & Stevens EXAMINER GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M

1656 Ex Parte Yang et al 11/095,802 ADAMS 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER TSAY, MARSHA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Yu et al 10/664,503 HASTINGS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Errico 09/819,126 COURTENAY 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

See Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation). (citations omitted).

2451 Ex Parte Emerson et al 10/037,501 DILLON 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick et al 10/675,916 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/119,720 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) CUMMINS, INC. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

2011-12-14T09:01:00.006+08:00

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Zimran et al 11/343,313 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Bernier 10/224,780 DANG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Omar 11/095,887 GRIMES 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Hacker et al 11/701,228 FETTING 103(a) James P. Broder Roeder & Broder LLP EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

3716 Ex Parte Mothwurf et al 10/991,308 PETRAVICK 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Grenier et al 11/490,319 FRANKLIN 103(a)/112(2) ERAGEN BIOSCIENCES, INC. EXAMINER LU, FRANK WEI MIN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/832,322 DIXON 103(a)/103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

2176 Ex Parte Errico et al 10/155,269 BARRY 103(a)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Peterka et al 10/882,606 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP EXAMINER MOLINA, ANITA C

"[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Britto et al 10/274,301 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) Eric S. Britto True Bounce, Inc. EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S

REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al JINGLE NETWORKS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. GRAPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/001,163 TURNER 314(a)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: SOFER & HAROUN LLP. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER BARNIE, REXFORD N

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Kahn et al 11/315,391 MILLS 103(a) Amersham Biosciences Corp EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

1636 Ex Parte Kenten et al 10/726,069 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KETTER, JAMES S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Fournier et al 10/740,584 GUEST 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/338,972 PRATS 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Banavar et al 10/434,815 COURTENAY 102(e) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER VU, THONG H

2159 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/334,615 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER BURKE, JEFF A

2168 Ex Parte Yan et al 11/096,165 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2191 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/870,222 LUCAS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER NAHAR, QAMRUN

“In a series of opinions, both this court and our predecessor court, the United States Court of Customs & Patent Appeals (“Patent Court”), have recognized that if the appellant has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Board's actual basis of rejection, the administrative validity proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) should be allowed to continue. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1367–68 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing numerous Patent Court cases).” In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Reith et al 10/472,326 DROESCH 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER REZA, MOHAMMAD W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11/228,583 FETTING 103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BROWN, ALVIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Huber et al 10/535,067 McCARTHY 103(a) Merchant & Gould, P.C. EXAMINER COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT

2011-12-13T10:12:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Charneau et al 11/250,616 PRATS 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF SALVATORE ARRIGO AND SCOTT LEE, LLP EXAMINER BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Rudolf et al 10/334,806 BLANKENSHIP 112(2)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Kao et al 10/661,793 JEFFERY 102(e) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Cook et al 10/942,569 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Hallman 11/186,649 HORNER 103(a) Floyd B. Carothers CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3768 Ex Parte 7734325 et al CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. CARESTREAM HEALTH, INC. Patent Owner 95/001,379 SONG 103(a) EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER GUPTA, VANI

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2613 Ex Parte 7369772 et al Inter Partes FUJITSU LIMITED Requestor, Appellant v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,485 EASTHOM 102/103 For Patent Owner: Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto For Third Party Requester: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLPEXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SEDIGHIAN, REZA

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Faunce et al 10/955,742 SMITH 103(a) Steven W. Roth IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LE, HUNG D

2166 Ex Parte Turba et al 10/293,780 KOHUT 102(e) UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B

2177 Ex Parte Wolfston et al 10/890,881 DESHPANDE 103(a) MICHAEL O. SCHEINBERG EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Fano et al 10/826,227 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) Vedder Price PC EXAMINER PENG, FRED H

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Kaus et al 10/488,433 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a)/101 Daniel J Piotrowski
US Philips Corporation EXAMINER VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Bayne 11/871,992 FISCHETTI 103(a) ANTHONY JEREMIAH BAYNE EXAMINER DASS, HARISH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Emori 10/697,157 SAINDON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER LIM, SENG HENG

REHEARING

GRANTED

2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H

Furthermore, and separately, in CyberSource our reviewing Court stated that “[r]egardless of what statutory category (‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2011-12-12T09:04:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Kloeb et al 11/557,203 OWENS 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER BROWN II, DAVID N

1764 Ex Parte Siol 11/997,239 GUEST 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11/079,785 HORNER 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/227,283 COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER LOVEL, KIMBERLY M

“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). Because Appellants have not pointed to specific enabling support in the Specification, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position.

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Cole, In re, 326 F.2d 769, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164.06(c)

2183 Ex Parte Keck et al 10/326,425 POTHIER 103(a) ZAGORIN O'BRIEN GRAHAM LLP (1001) EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Arbogast et al 11/530,452 KAUFFMAN 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

DISMISSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Stein et al 10/813,587 HASTINGS 102(b)/112(2)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER TURK, NEIL N

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3711 Ex Parte 5688174 et al Ex parte VEGAS AMUSEMENT, INC. 90/011,023 08/540,328 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SCHAAF, JAMES CHARLES

REHEARING

GRANTED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte PATERA et al 11/834,776 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2011-12-09T08:48:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hansen 11/595,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/737,124 MACDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Roginsky et al 09/999,643 POTHIER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers et al 10/216,821 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Goicoechea et al 09/977,826 COCKS 112(1) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/172,021 GAUDETTE 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1736 Ex Parte KURATA et al 12/130,179 GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,659 GAUDETTE 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id. It has long been the case that an inventor’s allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient—an alleged date of invention must be corroborated. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[E]vidence is assigned probative value and collectively weighed to determine whether reduction to practice has been achieved.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170. “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id.

In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,853 GAUDETTE 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/425,647 HOMERE concurring BLANKENSHIP obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM

REHEARING

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

2011-12-08T09:16:00.005+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Cai et al 11/852,433 GRIMES 112(1) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER COUGHLIN, MATTHEW P

A later state of the art cannot be relied on as evidence that a claimed invention was not enabled as of its filing date. See In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 606 (CCPA 1977) (“Appellants disclosed, as the only then existing way to make [the claimed ‘solid polymer’], a method of making the crystalline form. To now say that appellants should have disclosed in 1953 the amorphous form which on this record did not exist until 1962, would be to impose an impossible burden on inventors and thus on the patent system.”).

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124, 2164.05(a)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Krull et al 11/858,944 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1781 Ex Parte Bartkowska et al 11/867,223 SMITH 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1781 Ex Parte Ishida et al 11/090,076 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Sartain et al 11/217,102 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER DONDERO, WILLIAM E

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/112,926 MILLS 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Samuels et al 12/017,241 McKELVEY 102(b) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KHAN, TAHSEEN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/252,438 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BASHORE, WILLIAM L

2185 Ex Parte Parkinson 10/939,274 SMITH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER YU, JAE UN

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Groezinger 10/591,198 PAK 103(a) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

2011-12-07T09:30:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Sollars 10/696,757 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

3671 Ex Parte Eubanks et al 11/061,966 GREENHUT 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER TORRES, ALICIA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Halamoda et al 10/753,874 McCARTHY 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG H

3761 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/011,085 PRATS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3761 Ex Parte Ohba et al 10/360,726 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Kurohashi et al 11/286,644 FREDMAN 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte de Buzzaccarini et al 11/799,791 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte LeClair et al 11/089,300 BARRY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) TRAN & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER TRIMMINGS, JOHN P

Here, the Examiner makes the following "specific fact finding," Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), ... For their part, the Appellants do not address these findings. ... This argument puzzles us. It "do[es] not . . . explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error." Belinne, at *4.

"Obviousness is not to be determined on the basis of purpose alone." In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774 (CCPA 1965).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Paterson et al 10/646,233 BARRETT 103(a) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER GRAHAM, GARY K

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Cofino et al 11/113,457 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

2011-12-06T08:56:00.002+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Erhan et al 11/717,524 WALSH 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER CARR, DEBORAH D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Yilmaz et al 11/397,974 FREDMAN 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER YAO, LEI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Dinger et al 10/711,956 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that interpreting 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) to require a more substantive argument than a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach limitation in order to address a claim separately, is not an unreasonable interpretation of the rule). Additionally, any arguments not presented are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

2011-12-05T08:52:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/815,038 NAPPI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN LLP EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Pan 11/592,471 GRIMES 103(a) 103(a) POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP ATTN: JANET E. REED, PH.D. EXAMINER KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

1654 Ex Parte West et al 11/129,941 McCOLLUM 112(2)/102(b) 102(b) Paul R. Morico Baker Botts L.L.P. EXAMINER HA, JULIE

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Weisman 10/954,039 HASTINGS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Sakamoto 11/508,160 MacDONALD 102(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LE, THANH TAM T

2011-12-02T08:53:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/358,102 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN

REEXAMINATION

REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al MICROSOFT CORP. Requester and Respondent v. GARY ODOM, Patent Owner and Appellant Odom v. Microsoft 95/001,208 11/125,276 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner Third Party Requester ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al Ex parte GARY ODOM, Appellant 90/009,703 11/125,276 SIU 102(b) 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) Patent Owner Gary Odom Third Party Requester McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/651,447 WALSH 103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

See, e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1309-20 (Fed. Cir 2007). In Ormco Corp,
the Court held that when dependent claims “were found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious.” In Ormco, “[dependent] claims 10 and 17 . . . were invalid as obvious” but independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 10 and 17 depended, had not been determined to be obvious. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause claims 10 and 17 were found to have been obvious, the broader claims 1 and 11 must also have been obvious.” Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319. See also, Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness”) citing Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319.

1637 Ex Parte Hantash et al 11/588,184 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HORLICK, KENNETH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Bobee et al 11/558,711 GARRIS 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

1765 Ex Parte Slack 11/654,960 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,680 11/887,683 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Elnozahy et al 11/551,168 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) Jack V. Musgrove EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bouchard et al 10/029,679 WINSOR 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir, 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . .2114

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ming et al 11/133,007 PAK 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2011-12-01T09:11:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Weber 11/126,424 COLAIANNI 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1716 Ex Parte Moriya et al 10/166,303 GARRIS 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1778 Ex Parte Nishiyama et al 11/242,893 PAK 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

See, e.g., Uniroyal, Inc., v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Even when the applied prior art references were combined as proposed, no obviousness can be established if the claimed subject matter would not result from the proposed combination.)

Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 5 USPQ2d 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.08

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Chan et al 09/755,863 CHEN 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER VAUGHN, GREGORY J

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Lai 11/191,921 DANG 102(e)/103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER TORRES, MARCOS L

2629 Ex Parte Garfio et al 11/018,008 STEPHENS 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER SHAPIRO, LEONID

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Weber et al 10/918,841 ASTORINO 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER EVANS, GEOFFREY S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Russ et al 10/253,115 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SALCE, JASON P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Meyer 11/352,464 BAHR 102(b) 102(b) GRAYBEAL JACKSON LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-42 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the preponderance of the evidence standard requires the finder of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence).

3643 Ex Parte Baumann 11/296,405 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3673 Ex Parte Murphy 11/322,638 HORNER 103(a) 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER KELLEHER, WILLIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED; § 41.50(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3732 Ex Parte 6,375,659 et al Ex parte ORTHOVITA, INC. Appellant 90/010,652 09/788,930 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTEONICS - SOB;VITA Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER PHILOGENE, PEDRO

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte HOSHINO et al 11/850,784 GREEN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

1625 Ex Parte Halazy et al 10/381,200 MILLS 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANG, CELIA C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Gaag et al 11/809,575 SMITH 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER IP, SIKYIN

1766 Ex Parte Phelan et al 11/148,104 ROBERTSON 103(a) CIBA VISION CORPORATION EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S

1767 Ex Parte Matsuoka et al 12/110,494 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

1777 Ex Parte Kent et al 10/961,077 SMITH obviousness-type double patenting/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1787 Ex Parte Achten et al 10/866,888 HASTINGS 103(a) LANXESS CORPORATION EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Landgraf 10/470,430 CHEN 103(a) Striker Striker & Stenby EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L

2168 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/316,246 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TRAN, ANHTAI V

2171 Ex Parte McKeon et al 10/916,715 JEFFERY 102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 10/778,494 DANG 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER FEATHERSTONE, MARK D

2451 Ex Parte Saito et al 09/984,741 DILLON 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte STORZ 09/330,856 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAI V

2628 Ex Parte Maeng 11/438,829 BAUMEISTER 101/103(a) Kelly K. Kordzik Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, KEE M

2629 Ex Parte Ditzik 11/023,361 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER BODDIE, WILLIAM

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Drobny et al 11/173,695 HAHN 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER HSIEH, HSIN YI

2878 Ex Parte Ehrenberg et al 11/529,961 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER BUI PHO, PASCAL M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Hessel et al 11/195,734 MOHANTY 101/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Dacey 10/486,963 HOELTER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER FERNSTROM, KURT

3736 Ex Parte Fulton et al 10/943,434 MILLS 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

3765 Ex Parte Mahoney 11/087,055 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) Kenneth P. Glynn EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Booth et al 10/272,588 BARRY 103(a) Duke Yee Yee Assoicates PC EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

2011-11-30T08:59:00.003+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/594,148 GREEN dissenting FREDMAN 101/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SEHARASEYON, JEGATHEESAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/478,401 COLAIANNI 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

1723 Ex Parte Thielert 10/520,853 HANLON 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1727 Ex Parte Gao et al 11/106,225 COLAIANNI 112(2)/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

“[W]hen an applicant puts forth relevant evidence . . . the Board must consider such evidence.” In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1734 Ex Parte Irie et al 10/244,010 COLAIANNI 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1761 Ex Parte Greene et al 11/427,944 COLAIANNI 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER AHVAZI, BIJAN

1789 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN et al 11/388,857 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) Annette M. Frawley, Attorney General Mills EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/982,560 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2186 Ex Parte Nevill 10/781,867 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Boudreau et al 10/318,116 MORGAN 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte NISHIMURA et al 11/844,182 HUGHES 102(e) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Vega et al 10/697,010 DANG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

2628 Ex Parte LAMPING et al 09/124,805 STEPHENS 102(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Gore et al 11/426,677 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Hazama 09/817,123 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

3764 Ex Parte Loyd et al 11/322,443 SAINDON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Kazi et al 10/376,902 HOMERE 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER PARDO, THUY N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/903,121 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, VINH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Matos 10/841,326 SPAHN 112(2)/102(b)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lizio et al 10/564,096 ADAMS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1638 Ex Parte Hillebrand et al 10/593,181 PRATS 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1742 Ex Parte Benavitz et al 11/757,143 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H

1745 Ex Parte Harding et al 11/787,260 GUEST concurring TORCZON 103(a) The Jackson Patent Group EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

1798 Ex Parte Polat et al 10/740,261 GUEST 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Vilalta et al 09/906,168 COURTENAY 112(1)/101/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”).

2167 Ex Parte Bergholz 11/222,881 GONSALVES 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Washino 10/418,341 DANG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2453 Ex Parte Issa 11/234,493 DANG 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Toyozawa et al 10/541,092 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Santurkar et al 11/244,572 DANG 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER TAN, VIBOL

2855 Ex Parte Meinlschmidt et al 10/381,038 DANG 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Ledger et al 11/549,354 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER PHAN, HAU VAN

3635 Ex Parte Baratuci et al 11/305,041 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/490,165 BARRETT 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3754 Ex Parte Dux et al 10/149,988 SPAHN 102(b) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NICOLAS, FREDERICK C

3788 Ex Parte Mitten et al 11/025,743 ASTORINO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

2011-11-29T08:45:00.005+08:00

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 10/426,501 DROESCH 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

2163 Ex Parte Meiresonne 09/938,163 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, MERILYN P

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Kregel 12/099,930 DROESCH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Alam et al 11/767,574 KIM 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

Appellant is their own lexicographer, and by using the transitional phrase “consist of,” Appellant has made a conscious choice to exclude systems that gather information from resources other than those listed. See In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 521 (CCPA 1931). While there are two exceptions to such exclusions, neither are applicable here. See Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (impurities are not excluded); Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (items unrelated to the group are not excluded).

Gray, In re, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

Davis, Ex parte, 80 USPQ 448 (Bd. App. 1948).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 70 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . 2111.03

3643 Ex Parte Grimaldi 11/175,769 ASTORINO 103(a) Mitchell D. Bittman EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Rathsack et al 10/409,285 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

To use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction is “an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

3784 Ex Parte Choi 10/683,600 SPAHN 103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Graham et al 10/278,763 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) SOMMER BARNARD PC EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Shumarayev et al 11/006,420 STEPHENS 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER WHITE, DYLAN C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/453,689 SAINDON Dissenting McCARTHY 103(a)/102(b) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3684 Ex Parte Martignoni 11/789,331 KIM 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Scott P. Zimmerman, PLLC - Others EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Strauser 11/672,784 GREENHUT 103(a) 103(a) LARSON AND LARSON EXAMINER YIP, JACK

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,773 GARRIS 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pilu et al 10/868,368 EASTHOM 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2173 Ex Parte Cowan et al 11/313,903 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Bandholz et al 11/008,811 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Nakao 11/143,576 DILLON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER FISCHER, MARK L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Bawendi et al 10/958,659 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

2829 Ex Parte Lim et al 10/664,982 HAHN 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HA T

2893 Ex Parte Farlow et al 11/409,298 STEPHENS 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Nagao 10/965,846 CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COPPOLA, JACOB C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3784 Ex Parte Najewicz 11/437,003 KOHUT 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D

2011-11-28T09:13:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/341,526 MILLS 103(a) MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Tamura et al 11/783,590 PRATS 251/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

The recapture rule “prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468.

Application of the recapture rule is a three step process. . . . The first step is to determine whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims. . . . [A] reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader with respect to the modified limitation. . . . Next, the court must determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to surrendered subject matter. . . . To determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection. . . . [In] the third step of the recapture analysis . . . the court must determine whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue claim.

In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

“In discussing this third step, it is important to distinguish among the original claims (i.e., the claims before the surrender), the patented claims (i.e., the claims allowed after surrender), and the reissue claims.” Id. Thus, “recapture may be avoided under this final step of the analysis if the reissue claims "materially narrow" the claims relative to the original claims such that full or substantial recapture of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution is avoided.” Id. (quoting N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

However, “if the reissue claim is as broad as or broader [than the canceled or amended claim] in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection, but narrower in another aspect completely unrelated to the rejection, the recapture rule bars the claim . . . .” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470.

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02

North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Szymanski et al 10/947,077 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH

In effect, Appellants’ Specification and claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, covering all potential joints/linkages and sensor configurations later invented and determined to fall within the claims’ functional boundaries. This is not sufficient to satisfy the description requirement. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (stating that a sufficient description of a genus requires disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus to permit one of skill in the art to “‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus”).

2011-11-24T09:03:00.004+08:00

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Bard et al 11/159,412 MILLS 102(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Steins 11/300,006 SPAHN 102(b) Karl M. Steins Steins & Associates EXAMINER OLSZEWSKI, JOHN

3673 Ex Parte Hollander 11/701,980 KAUFFMAN 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

Gzybowski’s flexible bag type container, when modified as proposed by the Examiner, could be opened by an adult, thwarting Gzybowski’s purpose of providing a tamperproof container, and rendering Gzybowski’s container unsuitable for its intended purpose. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious.).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Haugaard 10/570,764 KAUFFMAN 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Puri et al 10/191,892 ZECHER 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T