SEARCH

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Tuesday May 11, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Malkin 10/437,078 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Andrzejak et al 10/418,075 MARTIN 101/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CASANOVA, JORGE A

Although it is possible for claimed subject matter to be patent-ineligible even though it fits within one or more statutory categories under § 101, In re Ferguson, 58 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Ex parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1034 (BPAI 2009) (precedential), the Examiner has not demonstrated that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter. In Gutta, for example, the Board held that a claim which recites a “machine” or an “article of manufacture” under § 101 nevertheless will be deemed to recite patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101 if the claim “involves a mathematical algorithm” and if the answer to either of the following two questions is “no”:
(1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., “not a mere field-of-use label having no significance”)?

(2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either “in all fields” of use of the algorithm or even in “only one field?”

Gutta, 93 USPQ2d at 1031 (footnotes omitted).

Because the Examiner has not established that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter even though they recite a machine, we will not sustain the § 101 rejection of any of these claims.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Malkin 11/220,672 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER KOLB, NATHANIEL J

An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Knauseder 11/229,178 FRANKLIN 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER STEPHEN, EMEM O

Ex Parte Penny et al 10/411,056 CRAWFORD 103(a) JACK J SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL

Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,017 CRAWFORD 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D

Where claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a § 103 rejection of the claims must be reversed as impermissibly involving speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962). 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.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Chang et al 11/083,261 McCOLLUM 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A

"[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). "Only if the ‘results of optimizing a variable’ are ‘unexpectedly good’ can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). "[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

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

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Rice et al 10/988,168 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex Parte 5283862 et al 90/008,240 TORCZON 112(2)/112(6)/103(a) GILBRETH & ASSOCS., for the patentee AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN, LLP, for the requester EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J

No comments :