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

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Thursday April 29, 2010


1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Hollingsworth et al 10/795,652 WALSH 103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C.

Ex Parte Rollat et al 10/023,330 ADAMS 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sjoberg 10/309,345 SMITH 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO

Ex Parte Weeks 10/528,610 DELMENDO 103(a) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

Ex Parte Bartenbach et al 10/806,232 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP

Ex Parte Nam et al 10/374,980 KIMLIN 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM

Ex Parte Petzoldt et al 10/934,525 NAGUMO 103(a)/provisionalobviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP

Ex Parte Beutel et al 10/755,128 TIMM 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Bit-Babik et al 10/945,234 HAIRSTON 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC.

Ex Parte Awada et al 10/845,534 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte McGowan et al 10/632,072 HAIRSTON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Andreason 09/898,480 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte Chen et al 11/121,877 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bristow et al 11/618,950 GARRIS 103(a)/provisional obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

Ex Parte Bristow et al2 10/805,760 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sonkin et al 10/872,633 SIU Concurring JEFFERY 112(2)/101/102(e) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/045,556 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

The Federal Circuit has stated that simply disclosing a general purpose computer as the structure to perform the claimed function does not meet the corresponding structure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. Rather, "the corresponding structure for a § 112 paragraph 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification." Id (citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Fritz et al 10/307,680 HOFF 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Marvit et al 10/807,561 EASTHOM 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bunker 10/089,011 STAICOVICI 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC

Consistent with the holding in BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 (c)(1)(vii)(2009).

No comments :