SEARCH

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

Monday, May 3, 2010

Monday May 3, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Baldenius et al10/468,610 ADAMS 102(f) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Jiang et al 10/288,225 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Krenn 10/170,190 HOFF 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N

Ex Parte Garrec et al 10/491,057 SIU 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER MUSA, ABDELNABI O

Ex Parte Park 09/941,837 HAIRSTON 103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. EXAMINER VAN HANDEL, MICHAEL P

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Kim et al 10/748,168 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

Ex Parte Maciocco et al 10/377,580 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER LEUNG, WAI LUN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Ho et al 11/040,493 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER WEST, JEFFREY R

Ex Parte Ahne et al 10/883,426 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAM S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Pasquale et al 10/436,743 CRAWFORD 112(1)/101/102(b)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER BROOKS, MATTHEW L


As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a
disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to
be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of §
101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled
in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its
scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and
its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper
on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating
that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are
true.
In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis added). “To violate [35 U.S.C.] § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result.” Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915, 175 USPQ 172 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04

Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . 2107.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al 11/116,165 COLAIANNI 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rancien et al 10/312,009 KRIVAK 103(a) Oliff & Berridge, P.L.C. EXAMINER GOINS, DAVETTA WOODS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Robson et al 10/635,156 KERINS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

No comments :