PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, July 31, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Grass et al COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Hsu et al BLANKENSHIP 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP - IBM ARC DIVISION

Ex Parte Montijo KRIVAK 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Hayamizu et al KRATZ 103(a) OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brown et al MOHANTY 102(b) IBM CORPORATION (SS) C/O STREETS & STEELE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte BUTTERFIELD et al PATE, III 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP

Ex Parte Choe et al PATE III 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/103(a) STEIN MCEWEN, LLP

Ex Parte Alston PRATS 102(b)/103(a) NOVARTIS

Ex Parte Grice et al LEE 103(a) John Wiley Horton, Attorney Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A.

Ex Parte Oslund et al HORNER 102(e) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA

BILSKI - AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Casati et al FISCHETTI 102/101 Hewlett Packard Company

BILSKI - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Haworth et al FETTING 102(e)/101 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Peterson et al COLAIANNI 103(a) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

Ex Parte Selverian et al TIMM 102(b)/103(a) OSRAM SYLVANIA INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Sisk TIERNEY 102(b)/103(a) Masco Corporation

Thursday, July 30, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Nagle et al McCOLLUM 102(b) NATIONAL STARCH LLC
Method of grain production for heterozygous waxy sugary-2 maize
Nagle (US 5,954,883, Sep. 21, 1999)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fink et al KIMLIN 103(a) JOANN VILLAMIZAR / CIBA CORPORATION
Grafting of nitroxyl terminated oligomers or polymers onto thermoplastic
Chin (Chin) 6,444,754 B1 Sep. 3, 2002

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ferlitsch WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) KIRTON & MCCONKIE
Systems and methods for providing load balance rendering for direct printing
Lobiondo US 5,287,194 Feb. 15, 1994
White US 2002/0063887 A1 May 30, 2002

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chuang et al HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) SMYRSKI LAW GROUP
Inspection system using small catadioptric objective
Shafer ‘518 US 5,717,518 Feb. 10, 1998
Chuang US 6,064,517 May 16, 2000
Shafer ‘722 US 2001/0040722 A1 Nov. 15, 2001
Liang US 2004/0051957 A1 Mar. 18, 2004

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Jaskot et al WALSH 103(a) KIRTON AND MCCONKIE
Lumbar support device
U.S. Patent No. 5,403,067, issued to Kumar Rajaratnam, Apr. 4, 1995.
U.S. Patent No. 6,840,125 B1, issued to Herbert M. Reynolds et al., Jan. 11, 2005.
U.S. Patent No. 4,685,739, issued to Elmar Deegener et al., Aug. 11, 1987.
U.S. Patent No. 4,981,325, issued to Dennis Zacharkow, Jan. 1, 1991.
U.S. Patent No. 5,178,163, issued to Edward H. Yewer, Jr., Jan. 12, 1993.

Ex Parte Clinesmith et al FISCHETTI 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
Computer-implemented method and system for global purchasing
Shoda US 6,513,712 B2 Feb. 4, 2003
Walker US 6,805,290 B2 Oct. 19, 2004

Ex Parte Vargas et al TIERNEY 102(e) CARDICA, INC.
Method for sutureless connection of vessels
Swanson 6,113,612 Sep. 5, 2000
Yencho
6,461,320 Oct. 8, 2002

Ex Parte Steinert et al PATE, III 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Gatherer stitcher for brochures
Mebus US 4,260,145 Apr. 7, 1981
Dilo US
6,161,269 Dec. 19, 2000

In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1983). There is no legally recognizable essential gist or heart of the invention. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Sekiya et al BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL
Polishing tool and polishing method and apparatus using same
James (US 6,069,080, issued May 30, 2000)

Ex Parte Edwards MILLS 103(a) ULMER & BERNE, LLP
Retention system for a spare tire
Kennedy U.S. 4,676,415 June 30, 1987
Fukushima U.S. 6,474,715 B2 Nov. 5, 2002

BILSKI - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Butz MARTIN 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) OBER / KALER c/o Royal W. Craig
Software system for quantitative measurement of accountability of social services
Douglas et al. (Douglas) US 6,039,688 Mar. 21, 2000


All of the claims are method claims. As explained in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc):

The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article. See [Gottschalk v.] Benson, 409 U.S. [63,] 70, 93 S. Ct. 253 [(1972)]. Certain considerations are applicable to analysis under either branch. First, as illustrated by Benson and discussed below, the use of a specific machine or transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope to impart patenteligibility. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 93 S. Ct. 253. Second, the involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity. See [Parker v.] Flook, 437 U.S. [584,] 590, 98 S. Ct. 2522 [(1978)]. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 961-62.

Regarding “insignificant extra-solution activity,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has further explained:

Although the [Supreme] Court spoke of “postsolution” activity, we have recognized that the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to any insignificant extra-solution activity regardless of where and when it appears in the claimed process. See In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding a simple recordation step in the middle of the claimed process incapable of imparting patent-eligibility under § 101); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding a pre-solution step of gathering data incapable of imparting patent eligibility under § 101). Id. at 957 n.14.

Furthermore, “[a] requirement simply that data inputs be gathered–without specifying how–is a meaningless limit on a claim to an algorithm because every algorithm inherently requires the gathering of data inputs.” Id. at 963 (citing Grams, 888 F.2d at 839-40). Also, “the inherent step of gathering data can also fairly be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity.” Id. (citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 590).

Also, as noted in Bilski, the Diehr Court also held that “mere field-ofuse limitations are generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible process claim patent-eligible. See [Diamond v. Diehr,] 450 U.S. [175,] 191- 92, 101 S. Ct. 1048 [(1981)] (noting that ineligibility under § 101 ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’).” Bilski, 545 F.3d at 957.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Patel et al McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) WILLIAM J. McNICHOL, JR., REED SMITH LLP
Delivery system for topical medications
Smith (US 5,562,642, Oct. 8, 1996)
Sine (US
6,183,766 B1, Feb. 6, 2001)
Delambre (US
6,784,145 B2, Aug. 31, 2004)
Albacarys (US
6,338,855 B1, Jan. 15, 2002)

“[L]ong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem.” Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

“[I]t is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. ‘Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.’” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Koskey SCHEINER 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING
Heated pet bed
Reusche US 6,084,209 Jul. 4, 2000
Owen US
6,189,487 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
Curley US
2001/0045372 A1 Nov. 29, 2001
DiLiberto, Jr. US
2003/0183550 A1 Oct. 2, 2003





Wednesday, July 29, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Enyedy et al NAGUMO 103(a) HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN
Welding wire feeder and connection apparatus
Matiash et al., US 6,707,004 B2 (16 March 2004)
Kester et al., US 3,629,547 (1971).
Albrecht et al., US 6,479,795 B1 (2002).
Miller et al., US 5,410,126 (1995).
Gilliland et al., US 5,025,127 (1991).

Ex Parte Iwasa et al PAK 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE-265550
Porous resin film and ink jet recording medium
Arai WO 99/46117 Sept. 16, 1999
Arai et al U.S. 6,632,487 Oct. 14, 2003
Fujita JP 07-195827 Aug. 1, 1995

"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697.

However, any structure or property implied by process steps must be considered when assessing the patentability of a product-by-process claim over the prior art. See In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (holding the claimed process limitation "interbonded one to another by interfusion between the surfaces of perlite particles" in a product-by-process claim to limit the structure of the claimed composite just as process limitations, such as "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," "etched," and "welded" were held to be capable of being construed as a structural limitation.)

The Examiner must supply a "sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same" before "the burden of showing that they are not" is shifted to the applicant. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte Burns et al DIXON 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Network on-ramp system and method
Bloomfield US 6,023,345 Feb. 8, 2000
Dilip US 6,704,409 B1 Mar. 9, 2004 (filed Dec. 31, 1997)

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Ferlitsch WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) KIRTON & MCCONKIE
Systems and methods for providing load balance rendering for direct printing
Lobiondo US 5,287,194 Feb. 15, 1994
White US
2002/0063887 A1 May 30, 2002

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components


Ex Parte Belady et al WHITEHEAD, JR., 103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
System for distributing AC power within an equipment rack
Gerald US 6,541,720 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
Chapel US
6,628,009 B1 Sep. 30, 2003

Ex Parte Wu et al KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P.
Dual damascene process without an etch stop layer
Zhao US 6,417,094 B1 Jul. 9, 2002
Lee US 6,472,306 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
Huang US 2004/0251549 A1 Dec. 16, 2004
Yang US 2006/0234443 A1 Oct. 19, 2006 (filed Apr. 15, 2005)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review


Ex Parte Lewis et al PRATS 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
Cabinet catch for use in a cabinet latch assembly
Gerson US 2,493,624 Jan. 3, 1950
Hughes US
3,734,551 May 22, 1973
North US
2,244,344 Jul. 22, 1940

However, the claims are not to be confined to the embodiments found in the Specification, and it is improper to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Ex Parte Colbert MILLS 103(a) KEUSEY, TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
Device for preventing dock piling or structure piling uplift
Bowers US 3,609,980 Oct. 5, 1971
Cosenza US
4,512,683 Apr. 23, 1985
Quigley et al. US
6,663,453 B2 Dec. 16, 2003

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Anders et al MOHANTY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Systems and methods for configurable entitlement management
Talbot US 2002/0116312 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Svancarek US
2004/0039705 A1 Feb. 26, 2004

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Van Waeg et al GRIMES 103(a) CARIDIANBCT, INC.
Method and apparatus for leukoreduction of red blood cells
Keller, US 6,200,287 B1, issued Mar. 13, 2001
Minshall, US
5,009,654, issued Apr. 23, 1991

"[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). "[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, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

"A ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the "improvement" is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal . . . there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Kanefsky et al THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - WW
Method and apparatus for sharing wireless content
Nykanen US 6,661,784 B1 Dec. 9, 2003 (filed Mar. 2, 1999)
Darago US
6,170,014 B1 Jan. 2, 2001 (filed Mar. 18, 1999)
Osaku US
6,061,738 May 9, 2000

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Popp et al WALSH 102(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Fastener orientation for packaged garments having refastenable seams
Popp US 2002/0123730 A1 Sep. 5, 2002
Kuske WO 97/49618 Dec. 31, 1997


Ex Parte Damen DANG 112(1)/103(a) PATENT CAPITAL GROUP
Portable device comprising an acceleration sensor
Brejnik US 4,101,071 Jul. 18, 1978
Matsumoto US
4,911,427 Mar. 27, 1990
Sutton US
5,117,444 May 26, 1992
Yoshimura US
5,788,655 Aug. 4, 1998
Kadhiresan US
6,021,351 Feb. 1, 2000
Brown US
6,240,393 B1 May 29, 2001
Mault (Mault II) US
6,513,532 B2 Feb. 4, 2003
Mault (Mault) US
6,571,200 B1 May 27, 2003
Teller US
6,605,038 B1 Aug. 12, 2003

NUIJTEN - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Miller THOMAS 102(e) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM)
Peer protocol status query in clustered computer system
Murphy US 6,138,251 Oct. 24, 2000

“A transitory, propagating signal is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007), “If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” Id. at 1354, reh’g en banc denied, 515 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 70 (2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Deshpande et al MACDONALD 103(a) MHKKG/SUN AUSTIN, TX
System and method for performing patch installation via a graphical user interface
Stupek, Jr. US 5,586,304 Dec. 17, 1996
Yinger US 5,960,204 Sep. 28, 1999
Cantos US 6,529,784 B1 Mar. 04, 2003
Marino US 6,681,391 B1 Jan. 20, 2004
Curtis US 6,687,902 B1 Feb. 03, 2004

Non-functional descriptive material refers to data content that does not exhibit a functional interrelationship with the substrate and does not affect the way the computing processes are performed. See MPEP § 2106.01. In a precedential decision, an expanded Board panel recently held that elements that do not affect the claimed process are non-functional material and are merely descriptive. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See
In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential informative), aff'd, 191 Fed.Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339.

Monday, July 27, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Vasoya et al TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/102(b) KAUTH, POMEROY, PECK & BAILEY, LLP
Lightweight circuit board with conductive constraining cores
Ozaki (US 6,013,588, issued Jan. 11, 2000)
Japp (US 6,329,603 B1, Dec. 11, 2001)

“The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim language.” In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Williams HOFF 112(2)/103(a) MHKKG/SUN AUSTIN, TX
Method and apparatus for testing a transmission path
Crook US 5,557,209 Sep. 17, 1996
Brooks US
6,140,198 Aug. 15, 2000
Parker US
6,933,703 B2 Aug. 23, 2005
Tesdahl US
6,998,849 B2 Feb. 14, 2006
Crook US
7,109,728 B2 Sep. 19, 2006

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Masuzawa DELMENDO 102(b) ARNOLD INTERNATIONAL
Rear projection lens device and magnification adjusting method thereof
Hasegawa US 3,674,343 July 4, 1972

Friday, July 24, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lambert et al GREEN 103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC
Emulsion vehicle for poorly soluble drugs
Trevino et al. (US 5,733,526, issued Mar. 31, 1998)
Illum et al. (WO 97/03651, published Feb. 6, 1997)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Clabes et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) IBM AUSTIN (ANTHONY ENGLAND)
Thermally aware integrated circuit
Kikinis US 5,502,838 Mar. 26, 1996
Rusu US
2004/0037346 A1 Feb. 26, 2004

“Whether an invention is anticipated is a question of fact.” Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Educ. and Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Hoover Group, Inc. v. Custom Metalcraft, Inc., 66 F.3d 299, 302 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).

“What a reference teaches is a question of fact.” In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Takechi HORNER 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P.
Geared motor for electric wheelchair
Tanigawa, Jap App Pub No. 05-008722
Hayashi, Jap App Pub No. 09-296829

(citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1954). In Japikse, the court held that moving a starter switch to a location different from the prior art was an obvious variation because the operation of the device would not be modified. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1023.

[however,]
See In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Smith HORNER 102(b)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC
Binding device for holding sheet materials or sleeves for compact discs
Wigginton US 1,876,374 Sep. 6, 1932
Jahn US
4,340,316 Jul. 20, 1982
Youngs US
2001/0051069 A1 Dec. 13, 2001

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Jones et al 102(b)/103(a) SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.
Method and system for providing prepaid data service
Taskett US 5,991,748 Nov. 23, 1999
Moore US 2002/0046255 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Lesley WO 98/21874 May, 22, 1998
Berry WO 99/56254 Nov. 4, 1999

Thursday, July 23, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Bruck et al COLAIANNI 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Casing tube with thermally insulating beads
Usui 5,104,627 Apr. 14, 1992
Iida
5,278,125 Jan. 11, 1994
Breuer
5,413,767 May 9, 1995
Degen DE 10032023 Jan. 10, 2002

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Pierre Cote et al DANG 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Discoverability and navigation of hyperlinks via tabs
Nielsen US 5,963,950 Oct. 5, 1999
Allen US
5,940,614 Aug. 17, 1999
Wistendahl US
5,708,845 Jan 13, 1998

Ex Parte Beckley et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, PA & MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC
Self-contained radio apparatus for transmission of data
Shoji US 6,670,924 B1 Dec. 30, 2003
Pollack US
6,899,153 B1 May 31, 2005

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Morper HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Method and device for authenticated access of a station to local data
Oka US 6,091,945 Jul. 18, 2000
Sormunen US
6,112,078 Aug. 29, 2000
Wenzel US
2002/0034939 A1 Mar. 21, 2002

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Carman et al SCHEINER 102(b)/112(2) K&L GATES LLP
Multiple use handle support for distributing forces
Stephens (US Patent 5,331,989, issued July 26, 1994)

Ex Parte Moon et al COLAIANNI 103(b) HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
Circuit board having a heating means and a hermetically sealed multi-chip
Kunii (JP 06-268113, published Sept. 22, 1994)
Schulman (US
5,750,926, published May 12, 1998)
Goto (WO 90/16141, published Dec. 27, 1990)
Carr (US
3,289,046, published Nov. 29, 1966)

Ex Parte Berenstein et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP
Expandable body cavity liner device
Oddo 2,849,002 (Aug. 26, 1958)

Ex Parte Bergman WALSH 112(2)/103(a) James L. Young Westman, Champlin & Kelly, P.A.
Hand-held vessel
Fredette 1,590,572, June 29, 1926.
Vaughn
3,536,285, Oct. 27, 1970.
Biggio
4,860,891, Aug. 29, 1989.
Effertz
5,277,733, Jan. 11, 1994.
Kerr
5,033,704, Jul. 23, 1991.

"The entirety of the evidence must be reviewed in order to determine whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field." In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Ex Parte Gomez MILLS 102(b)/103(a) MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
Method and apparatus for protecting the distal lens of endoscopes
Dohm et al. US 5,720,391 Feb 24, 1998
Beane et al. US
2002/0022762 A1 Feb. 21, 2002
Lantz US
6,910,582 B2 Jun. 28, 2005

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Rife et al LANE 103(a) US Naval Research Laboratory
Fluidic force discrimination

“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. . . . It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted ‘where the results of optimizing a variable, which was known to be result effective, (are) unexpectedly good.’” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Williams STAICOVICI 112(1)/103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
Liquid storage
Moody US 3,756,410 Sep. 4, 1973
Kuno US
4,902,432 Feb. 20, 1990
Kirschner US
5,115,956 May 26, 1992
Kraus US
5,749,500 May 12, 1998
Plester US
5,776,333 Jul. 7, 1998
Acernese US
5,788,858 Aug. 4, 1998
Sawan US
5,817,325 Oct. 6, 1998

Ex Parte Hough et al MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) Pitney Bowes, Inc.
OPTICAL SENSOR CLEANER
Kalbow 4,055,029 Oct. 25, 1977
Gelardi et al.
5,457,843 Oct. 17, 1995
Beeson
5,589,865 Dec. 31, 1996
Kikuchi et al.
6,353,233 Mar. 5, 2002

“Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention.” Syntex (U.S.A) v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Ex Parte Schneider et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Device for supplying a respiratory gas
Gruenke (US 5,134,995, issued Aug 4, 1992)
Rapoport (US
5,546,933, issued Aug. 20, 1996)
Taube (US
5,388,575, issued Feb. 14, 1995)

Ex Parte Poole et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) non-statuatory obviousness double patenting ROBERT A. PARSONS
Self adjusting grooved pliers
Daugherty US 2,622,464 Dec. 23, 1952
Reich US
4,726,265 Feb. 23, 1988
Liou US
6,019,020 Feb. 1, 2000
Martinka US
2003/0101852 A1 Jun. 5, 2003
Poole US
7,017,458 B2 Mar. 28, 2006

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Vaidyanathan et al HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)
System, apparatus and method of enhancing priority boosting of scheduled threads
Bak US 6,167,424 Dec. 26, 2000
Gosalia US
2004/0160446 A1 Aug. 19, 2004 (filed Jan. 22, 2004)

Ex Parte Sluiman HOMERE 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM RSW
Automation and isolation of software component testing
Kobayashi US 6,633,888 B1 Oct. 14, 2003

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Park WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE, L.L.P.
Liquid crystal display of line-on-glass type
Choi US 5,657,041 Aug. 12, 1997
Watanabe US
5,870,163 Feb. 9, 1999
Kang US
6,621,547 B2 Sep. 16, 2003
Kim US
6,639,589 B1 Oct. 28, 2003

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Faour et al 103(a) KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
Temperature measurement of an integrated circuit
Audy US 5,195,827 Mar. 23, 1993
Davidson US
5,639,163 Jun. 17, 1997
Vergis US
6,453,218 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Deng US 6,911,861 B2 Jun. 28, 2005 (filed Aug. 7, 2003)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Velke et al HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Walk-behind lawn mower
Velke 5,810,371 (issued Sep. 22, 1998)
Klingier 6,622,354 B1 (issued Sep. 23, 2003)
Brainerd 5,878,834 (issued Mar. 9, 1999)
Gray 5,966,911 (issued Oct. 19, 1999)
Dunn 4,156,339 (issued May 29, 1979)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Yardley et al KERINS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC
Single-ply dispenser napkin
Lazar US 1,256,334 Feb. 12, 1918
Ito US
4,469,243 Sep. 4, 1984
Chan US
5,716,691 Feb. 10, 1998

The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement set forth in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The test for definiteness 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ogburn et al MEDLEY 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond
Pallet Assembly
Pigott et al. 4,843,976 Jul. 4, 1989
Ohanesian
6,446,563 Sep. 10, 2002

“[A]n indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’ . . . . Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the [applicant] evinces a clear intent to so limit the article . . . . Under this conventional rule, the claim limitation ‘a,’ without more, requires at least one.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Mehta JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) LADAS & PARRY
Piezoelectric actuator for tunable electronic components
Oomen US 3,646,413 Feb. 29, 1972
Gammel US
6,212,056 B1 Apr. 3, 2001

“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Jackson et al FETTING 102(b)/103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
Compliance management system and method
Sturgeon US 5,726,884 Mar. 10, 1998

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Jarpenberg et al SCHEINER 102(e)/103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.
Elasticized web and a method and apparatus for its manufacture
Mizutani U.S. Patent 6,733,610 B2, May 11, 2004

AFFIRMED-IN_PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Traina 102(b)/103(a) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
Cultivated biomass power system
Frederick US 4,203,374 May 20, 1980
Hertel US
4,437,419 Mar. 20, 1984
Rivers US
4,532,873 Aug. 6, 1985
Ladt US
4,572,086 Feb. 25, 1986
LePori US
4,848,249 Jul. 18, 1989
Moll US
5,935,842 Aug. 10, 1999
O’Connor US
6,536,360 B2 Mar. 25, 2003

Finally, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on structural grounds. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Merely stating an intended use for an apparatus is not sufficient to distinguish the apparatus from the prior art. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962).