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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bacher et al McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.

Ex Parte Tamai et al SMITH 102(b)/103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Riedel et al SMITH 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP

Ex Parte Bolis SMITH 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Choi HAHN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Crist O’NEILL 103(a) DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Matsunaga SCHEINER 102(b) SUGHRUE-265550

Ex Parte Burr et al O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP

To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, “there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991).


Scripps Clinic and Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 18 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . 2165.04, 2411.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Godbehere et al BAHR 112(2)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

In any event, arguments that allegedly anticipatory prior art teaches away from the claimed invention are not germane to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc. 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Ex Parte Nelson et al FRANKLIN 103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

Evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When determining whether a claim is obvious, an Examiner must make “a searching comparison of the claimed invention – including all its limitations – with the teaching of the prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).

Kulling, In re, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). . . . . 2144.05, 2145

Grasselli, Ex parte, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . .
2143.03, 2173.05(i)

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . .706.02(n), 2116.01, 2144.08, 806.05(f)

Ex Parte Graham et al HANLON 112(1)/102(b) ROCKEY, DEPKE & LYONS, LLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Fujiwara et al SAADAT 112(1)/102(b) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Andideh et al HOFF 102(e)/103(a) Trop Pruner & Hu, PC

Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01


Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

Ex Parte Zhuang NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) FARJAMI & FARJAMI, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hanjono et al SCHEINER 102(b) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP

Ex Parte Spear FISCHETTI 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Simon et al SCHEINER 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Liu et al KERINS 102(b) PATRICK S. YODER FLETCHER YODER


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Thomas et al SPIEGEL 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Matsumura et al PAK 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.


As stated in In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003), referring to Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir.1985): We have also held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2144.05

Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01, 2131.01, 2131.03, 2144.05

According to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955): [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05

A prior art reference teaching away from the claimed invention is evidence of nonobviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145
 Ex Parte O'NEIL et al SMITH 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Meagley et al FRANKLIN 102(e)/103(a) TROP PRUNER & HU, PC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Pearlman et al COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) Paul D. Greeley, Esq.Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Michaelis et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Purvis et al BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BASCH & NICKERSON LLP

That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in “means-plus-function” form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function. By failing to describe the means by which the access control manager will create an access control list, Blackboard has attempted to capture any possible means for achieving that end. Section 112, paragraph 6, is intended to prevent such pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333.
Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sterchi et al HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.

Ex Parte Obert SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Akimoto et al MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP

Ex Parte Dow et al MARTIN 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Roth et al FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) ULMER & BERNE LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Forbes et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP

Ex Parte Nguyen HORNER 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROBERT A. KENT

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Siravo et al PATE III 102(b)/112(1) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP

Ex Parte Caluori PATE III 102(b) MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP

Ex Parte Yampolsky et al TIERNEY 103(a) Edward S. Wright

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Resnick et al COURTENAY 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention.
Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850))

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hughes LORIN 102(e) KENYON & KENYON LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Liu et al KERINS 102(b) PATRICK S. YODER FLETCHER YODER

Ex Parte Goodin et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.

“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

Ex Parte Mehawej SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) JULIE POST H.B. FULLER COMPANY

Monday, September 28, 2009

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Terechko BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS


Ex Parte Binding et al BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR)


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Krishnan et al BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED


2600 Communications
Ex Parte Emery et al HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Ohshita et al KRIVAKConcurring Opinion BAUMEISTER 103(a)  ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC


“[T]he patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims.” Halliburton Energy Servs, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 at 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008).


Ex Parte Sidwell WARREN 103(a) OSRAM SYLVANIA INC.


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ryan LORIN 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.


The examiner may not, “resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967), cert.denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).


Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2142

Ex Parte Charquet et al PATE III 112(1)/112(2) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC


Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not “undue” if, e.g., it is merely routine, or if the specification provides a reasonable amount of guidance as to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).


Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

Ex Parte Schnedl et al PATE, III 102(e)/103(a) ROBERT J SCHNEIDER CHAPMAN & CUTLER


3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Watts et al LEE 102(b)/103(a) Pamela A. Kachur

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Van Doren et al LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Houston et al STEPHENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Offerle et al SILVERBERG 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC


Ex Parte Shuder et al LORIN 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MHKKG/SUN


Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an asserted inherent characteristic, it ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’ In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.1999).


Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)


Ex Parte Wu PATE III 103(a) DONALD E. SCHREIBER


Ex Parte Bassey et al LORIN 112(2)/103(a) RUSS WEINZIMMER


3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Sweeney PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Friday, September 25, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte NOELLE et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.


A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight
bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. See
Graham, 383 U.S., at 36, 86 S.Ct 684 (warning against a "temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue" and instructing courts to " ‘guard against slipping into the use of hindsight’ " (quoting Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406, 412 (C.A.6 1964))). Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).

Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). . . . . . 706.02(j), 706.02(m), 716.01(a), 804, 1504.03, 1504.06, 2106, 2141, 2144.08, 2258

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Cooper et al FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Ex Parte Bergsten et al DELMENDO 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Nguyen et al MACDONALD 112(2)/112(1)/102(e) Roger Fulghum Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ex Parte Farrett BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Morthier KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP

Ex Parte Brouwer et al WARREN 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hillo et al GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Warner BARRETT 103(a) John Buckert

Ex Parte Hancock-Cooke PRATS 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

BILSKI - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sandoval et al FISCHETTI 103(a)/101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Stiffler FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) Timothy M. Farrell IBM Corporation

Ex Parte Theiler FISCHETTI 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

“[I]f the preamble merely state[s] a purpose or intended use and the remainder of the claim completely defines the invention independent of the preamble,” it does not constitute a limitation. Lipscomb’s Walker on Patents, 3rd Edition, Vol. 3, § 11.11 at p. 361 (citing Marston v. J.C. Penney Co., 353 F.2d 976, 986 (4th Cir. 1965)); see also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (An element initially recited in the preamble is thereafter fully incorporated into the body of the claim so as to breathe life and breath into it by setting forth the complete combination).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Ex Parte Connor et al MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

“‘The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned, as they are a part of the literature and are relevant for all they contain.’” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983), citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968).

Heck, In re, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123

Lemelson, In re, 397 F.2d 1006, 158 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123

Thursday, September 24, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dinh et al SPIEGEL 102(e)/103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A.

Ex Parte Zerbe et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Aoki et al FRANKLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVASK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Jennings et al OWENS 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

Ex Parte Hui et al COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) K & L GATES LLP

Ex Parte Herzhaft et al HASTINGS 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY STOUT & KRAUS, LLP

See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.”).


W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132,

2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Harris et al MACDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Bullinger et al HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte SUGIYAMA GAUDETTE 103(a) AKIRA SUGIYAMA

Ex Parte Crews et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP

To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Howard LORIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Ogino et al CRAWFORD 102(e) SUGHRUE-265550

Ex Parte Sting et al BAHR 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

Ex Parte Hoshino CRAWFORD 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS

As the court in In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) stated: “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious- the claim becomes indefinite.” Id. at 1385.


Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Chen et al LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

Ex Parte Hann WILLIAM F. PATE, III 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP

Ex Parte Ellin et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC

Ex Parte Asius et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP

Ex Parte Kirschner et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

NUIJTEN - AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gardner BARRETT 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Nicolaos et al WARREN 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barturen et al BARRETT 102(e)/103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP

Arguments not made are considered waived. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art."); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936 (CCPA 1967) ("This court has uniformly followed the sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued in this court, even if it has been properly brought here by a reason of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed issues, not to create them.")


Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

Wiechert, In re, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Campisano et al SAADAT 103(a) WHITHAM CURTIS CHRISTOFFERSON, PC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Braco LORIN 102(e)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.

Ex Parte Ramajois et al PATE, III 103(a) LINIAK, BERENATO & WHITE

“When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005).


Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

Ex Parte Patel LEE 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS

Ex Parte Debler et al BAHR 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.

To adequately traverse the Examiner's finding of Official Notice, Appellants' traversal must contain information or argument that is adequate to create, on its face, a reasonable doubt as to the circumstances justifying the Examiner's notice. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Appellants must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well known in the art. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b); see also MPEP § 2144.03.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Duescher SMITH 102(b)/103(a) MARK A. LITMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Denda et al LUCAS 103(a) ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Niederdraenk et al BAUMEISTER 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Eubanks et al LEE 102(b) DEERE & COMPANY

Ex Parte Herline et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte McNutt et al LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP

A claim limitation is inherent in the prior art if it is necessarily present in
the prior art, not merely probably or possibly present.
Rosco v. Mirror Lite,
304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he dispositive question regarding
anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or
infer from the prior art reference's teaching that every claim [limitation] was
disclosed in that single reference.”
Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment,
Inc.
, 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted).

Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Services Inc., 344 F3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 66 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . .. . . .2004


Ex Parte Mertelmeier et al LANE 103(a) Young & Thompson

Ex Parte Hung et al WALSH 103(a) CYTYC CORPORATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ibar TIMM 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX

See In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen the prior art evidence reasonably allows the PTO to conclude that a claimed feature is present in the prior art, the evidence ‘compels such a conclusion if the applicant produces no evidence or argument to rebut it.’”) (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 n.3

Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

Ex Parte Stewart et al TIMM 102(e) MICHAEL O. SCHEINBERG

Claim interpretation is a matter of law and will normally control the remainder of the decisional process. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It is well settled that the word “substantially” has numerous ordinary meanings. It can be a term of approximation or a term of magnitude with meaning varying from “significantly” or “considerably” to “largely” or “essentially.” Deering Precision Instruments L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Sys. Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003). When “substantially” is used as a word of degree, one must look to the Specification to determine a standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“When a word of degree is used the district court must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.”).

Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . 716.06, 1504.03, 2134

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . .2173.05(b)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dykes et al THOMAS 102(e) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM)

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Haines et al HAIRSTON 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

To establish inherency, the evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is “necessarily present” in the thing described in the reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Shepardson PATE, III 103(a) HOLLAND & HART, LLP

Two structures may be “equivalent” for purposes of section 112, paragraph 6 if they perform the identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . .2106, 2183, 2184

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Johnson et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC

“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114


Also, “‘[f]unctional’ terminology may render a claim quite broad . . .[;] a claim employing such language covers any and all embodiments which perform the recited function.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, (CCPA 1971) (emphasis added).


Swinehart, In re, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . .2114, 2173.01, 2173.05(g), 2183

Ex Parte Toye et al KERINS 103(a) VERMETTE & CO.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bullock et al WARREN 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Cunningham et al TIMM 103(a) CAROL WILSON BP AMERICA INC

In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed.Cir. 2003).


MPEP: 2112

Ex Parte Ferencz et al WARREN 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ottesen et al MACDONALD 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Howard COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MHKKG/SUN


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Gravelle BAUMEISTER 103(a) CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD.



Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on
hindsight reasoning, but 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,
such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, , 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).

MPEP: 707.07(f), 2145

Ex Parte Wetzel et al HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Shibasaki WILLIAM F. PATE III 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) TROXELL K. SNYDER OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY


First of all, we do not believe that “substantially” renders the claimed subject matter indefinite in this case. “Substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996); See also, Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).

MPEP: 2181

Ex Parte Imai HORNER 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP

Ex Parte Koelzer WILLIAM F. PATE III 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC

Ex Parte Schmitz et al CRAWFORD 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

Ex Parte Oddsen et al PATE, III 102(b) DESIGN IP, P.C.

Ex Parte Beigel et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 103(a) INTERNATIONAL TRUCK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMPANY

We are in agreement with Appellants’ argument that the incorporation of the rain water trough in the mounting bar as disclosed by Appellants does reflect a certain synergy that is indicative of nonobviousness. See Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 60-62, 163 USPQ 673 (1969).


MPEP: 716.01(a), 2141, 2143.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Larsen BAHR 103(a) DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC

“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Commuc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commuc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble shouldbe construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).


MPEP: 707.07(f), 2111.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Nguyen DANG 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROY A. EKSTRAND

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Busch et al HAIRSTON 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Liu et al HORNER 102(e)/103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY