SEARCH

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

Friday, December 31, 2010

Friday December 31, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Taylor et al 10/971,211 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) SALLY J. BROWN AUTOLIV ASP, INC. EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Grayson 10/793,161 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

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

3695 Ex Parte Monk et al 10/690,394 CRAWFORD 101/102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER HAVAN, THU THAO

Here, similar to Benson, concluding that the claimed subject matter is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 would effectively pre-empt performing the various steps by any means, and in practical effect would be a patent on the idea of detecting fraud in relation to stored value products. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498, 507 (1874) quoted in In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106


Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/483,930 SPIEGEL 101/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 11/072,521 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1773 Ex Parte Blouin et al 10/007,031 COLAIANNI 102(b) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Janniello et al 09/938,147 STEPHENS 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER
STRANGE, AARON N


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Guttmann et al
10/399,938 EASTHOM 112(1)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER KIM, ELLEN E

REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Karavansky 10/640,992 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(b)/103(a) Sviatoslav Karavansky EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Thursday December 30, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Mani et al 10/676,903 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER KO, JASON Y

1734 Ex Parte Galligan et al 10/612,658 PAK 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

See In re Stencil, 828 F.2d 751 (Fed. Cir 1987) (holding that the functional limitation or intended purpose recited in a claim distinguishes the claimed device from the prior art device); In re Watanabe, 315 F.2d 924, 928 (CCPA 1963) (holding that the functional limitation or intended use recited in a claim limits the claimed electrode to a particular type of electrode having properties suitable for such function or intended use); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969) (The structure or property of a claimed product implied by process limitations must be considered when assessing the patentability of a product-by-process claim over the prior art).

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

1773 Ex Parte Herpst 09/977,664 SMITH 103(a) ROGER M. RATHBUN EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Landin et al 10/821,412 LUCAS 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Smart 10/818,920 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PERT, EVAN T

“[W]hen a party challenges written description support for an interference count or the copied claim in an interference, the originating disclosure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim language.” Robertson v. Timmermans, 603 F.3d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[In] an interference in which claims copied from one party’s patent into the other party’s application [are] the subject of a motion for invalidity based on prior art[,] . . . the claims should be interpreted in light of their host disclosure, just as they would during ex parte prosecution.” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Chan et al 10/773,496 LORIN 101/102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER POUNCIL, DARNELL A


Notwithstanding that this test [machine and/or transformation] for determining patent eligibility of a process is unduly narrow (see Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S. June 28, 2010), it can nevertheless be instructive as a factor in determining whether the claimed processes are patent-ineligible abstract ideas.
...

The Examiner finds that the claimed processes are not tied to another statutory class of invention, such as a machine. But the Examiner does not explain why this is so. See Answer 3-4. An explanation is made more necessary, given that the claims are reasonably broadly construed to require a particular apparatus. That is, they are nominally tied to a particular apparatus in contradistinction to the Examiner’s finding. The initial burden of establishing that the claimed processes are patent-ineligible abstract ideas has not therefore been established because the construction of the claims does not fully support finding that they are not tied to an apparatus as an underlying factor in concluding that the processes as claimed as a whole are patent-ineligible abstract ideas.


3628 Ex Parte Liew et al 10/456,410 LORIN 103(a) WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON LLP EXAMINER SALIARD, SHANNON S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1639 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/566,697 WALSH 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PAUL AND PAUL EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MACK-RAY, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,387 and 90/010,207 7,314,328 SONG 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: MYERS WOLIN, LLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JONES DAY EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER WALCZAK, DAVID J

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MACK-RAY, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,388 and 90/010,208 7,325,994 SONG 102(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MYERS WOLIN, LLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JONES DAY EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER WALCZAK, DAVID J

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bourgeois et al
Ex Parte Bourgeois et al
Ex Parte Doery
Ex Parte Hendra
Ex Parte Schwartz

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Wednesday December 29, 2010

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628
Ex Parte O'Martin et al 10/429,194 LORIN 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Block et al 10/159,539 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP EXAMINER VO, HAI

In this regard, the Examiner further asserts that "[a]ny claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement (Ans. 3). In support, the Examiner cites Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F. 2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

However, Grasselli does not provide a per se rule providing that the addition of any negative limitation to a claim, which is not expressly set forth in an application disclosure as originally filed, automatically violates the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Compare Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236-37 (BPAI 1993).
...

See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63 (the written description requirement is a factual question).

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Parks, Ex parte, 30 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . . . . . . .
2173.05(i)


Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Barazesh

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Tuesday December 28, 2010

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2618
Ex Parte Banerjea 10/838,868 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, TUAN A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839
Ex Parte Szczesny 11/304,235 PAK 103(a) ROBERT J. KAPALKA, ESQ. TYCO ELECTRONICS C/O THE WHITAKER CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAMBERS, TRAVIS SLOAN

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Benson et al
Ex Parte Benson et al
Ex Parte Mahler et al
Ex Parte Murakami
Ex Parte Nentrup
Ex Parte Shin et al

Monday, December 27, 2010

Monday December 27, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/821,149 STEPHENS 102(e) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER BETIT, JACOB F

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Noguchi 11/065,458 BARRETT 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER DAGER, JONATHAN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Klein 10/931,729 LUCAS 103(a)/112(1)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Griswold 10/084,820 BARRETT 103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Davis et al
Ex Parte Kiehn et al
Ex Parte Laugharn et al
Ex Parte Masini
Ex Parte Mizrachi et al
Ex Parte Voelkel et al
Ex Parte Xiao

REHEARING

Ex Parte Collins et al
Ex Parte Fisher et al

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Thursday December 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Hattendorf et al 11/648,333 WALSH 103(a) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER KLINKEL, KORTNEY L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Zajcev et al 10/511,811 FRANKLIN 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER SMITH, NICHOLAS A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Banatwala et al 10/745,098 CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Foulger et al 09/841,167 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER ROBERTSON, DAVID

As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507 (1874)). Moreover, the invention of claim 3 is merely an algorithm combined with a data-gathering step, which is not patent eligible subject matter. See In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963.

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2106

2161
Ex Parte Theurer 10/880,720 COURTENAY 103(a) IBM AUSTIN (ANTHONY ENGLAND)C/O LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY ENGLAND EXAMINER BIBBEE, JARED M

2165 Ex Parte Faunce et al 11/044,753 JEFFERY 102(e) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM

“The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope . . . . The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Iwamura 10/790,496 HAHN 103(a)/112(2) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A

2600 Communications
2629
Ex Parte Hill 10/850,516 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BECK, ALEXANDER S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Chan et al 09/97 1,206 LORIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3623 Ex Parte Coon 12/030,305 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2182 Ex parte POWERS INTEGRATION, INC. 90/008,326 6,249,876 SIU 102(b) For Patent Owner: James Y. Go BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN. LLP For Third Party Requester: Sanjeet K. Dutta Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

NEW

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Naparstek 09/826,069 SPIEGEL 103(a) EDWARD LANGER c/o SHIBOLETH YISRAELI ROBERTS ZISMAN & CO. EXAMINER EWOLDT, GERALD R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Hao et al 11/044,705 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, TING ZHOU

2181 Ex Parte Forrer et al
10/880,718 COURTENAY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2184 Ex Parte Andres et al
10/999,675 DANG 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER NAM, HYUN

2189 Ex Parte McBride et al
11/344,900 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
FAAL, BABOUCARR


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Davidson 10/938,326 MOHANTY 112(2)/103(a) J. Charles Dougherty Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Rader et al 10/282,766 GREEN 112(1) THE HECKER LAW GROUP EXAMINER TON, THAIAN N

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Wednesday December 22, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Boulais et al 10/219,668 WALSH 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER
YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

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

3625 Ex Parte Ibarra 10/859,436 CRAWFORD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MORRISS OBRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C. EXAMINER AIRAPETIAN, MILA

With respect to temperament, Stillman’s determining of a person’s mood through analyzing their voice meets the definition of “temperament” under a broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Appellant may have intended a more narrow or specific definition of temperament, such a definition is not set forth in the claim. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . 2111, 2111.01

3677 Ex Parte Pylant et al 11/485,081 TIERNEY 102(b) ISABELLE R. MCANDREWS EXAMINER LAVINDER, JACK W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Wilson et al 09/896,559 CRAWFORD 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10/665,441 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, RALPH A

see Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(“[A] claim term should be construed consistently with its appearance . . . in other claims of the same patent.”)

Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 60 USPQ2d 1851 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . 2111.01

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2851 Ex parte Printless Previews, LLC., Appellant 90/007,996 90/009,092 5,841,512 SCHAFER 103(a) SEAN A. LUNER DOVEL & LUNER LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER RUTLEDGE, DELLA J

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ali et al
Ex Parte Autor et al
Ex Parte Boivie et al
Ex Parte Cummins et al
Ex Parte Dosanjh
Ex Parte Edens et al
Ex Parte Liu et al
Ex Parte McKinnon
Ex Parte Morgan et al
Ex Parte Rudelic et al
Ex Parte Swart et al
Ex Parte Young et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Batra et al
Ex Parte Sazy

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Tuesday December 21, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Chang 11/324,588 GARRIS 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2454 Ex Parte Silva 10/759,409 HAIRSTON Concurring-in-part BAUMEISTER 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLPSTEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PARK, JEONG S

2464 Ex Parte Sarraf et al 10/636,161 HOFF 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUONGC HAU BA


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Hayes et al 11/612,794 EASTHOM 103(a) Taylor & Aust, PC EXAMINER
PATEL, HARSHAD C

2882 Ex Parte Hult 11/259,088 HANLON 103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUNG

The Court does not look favorably on per se rules of obviousness. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995 (no per se rule of obviousness exists).

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3731 Ex Parte Ramzipoor et al 11/140,691 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

3775
Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/659,302 McCARTHY 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER BARRETT, THOMAS C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Kulmann 10/380,405 GREEN 112(2)/103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER HUI, SAN MING R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Leong et al 11/394,625 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TRAN, TRANG Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Chu et al 11/340,647 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D

An adequate traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying Examiner's notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). If an applicant does not seasonably traverse the taking of official notice during examination, then the object of the official notice is taken to be admitted prior art. In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943).

Chevenard, In re, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738
Ex Parte Rivron et al 10/656,855 LEE 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Mark J. Burns Haugen Law Firm EXAMINER PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex parte DENNIS P. DEGREGORIO, JR. 90/010,091 6,978,547 LEE 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WATTS, DOUGLAS D

Breadth in scope does not equal indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971).

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2742 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/008,095
5,684,863 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN L. WELSH WELSH & FLAXMAN LLC EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER BROWN, THOMAS

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dobransky et al
Ex Parte Fedynyshyn et al
Ex Parte Foth et al
Ex Parte Hall et al
Ex Parte Larson et al
Ex Parte Lu et al
Ex Parte Lupp et al
Ex Parte Lyles et al
Ex Parte Okada et al
Ex Parte Skidmore et al
Ex Parte Chan
Ex Parte Young et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Elbers et al
Ex Parte Lencki et al

Monday, December 20, 2010

Monday December 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651
Ex Parte Ballevre et al 10/195,909 SPIEGEL 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Carmeli et al 10/713,956 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Kusters McCARTHY 103(a) ROBERTS & ROBERTS, LLP EXAMINER BEAUCHAINE, MARK J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Grady et al 10/843,113 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER ARAJ, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Murphy 10/734,078 WARREN 103(a) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC ALCOA TECHNICAL CENTER EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3679 CEJN AB, Requester and Respondent, v. Westerndorf Manufacturing Co., Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,371 7,021,668 ROBERTSON 103(a) PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ALBIHNS STOCKHOLM AB EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Adamczyk et al
Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al
Ex Parte Bender et al
Ex Parte Collias et al
Ex Parte Collias et al
Ex Parte Collias et al
Ex Parte Collias et al
Ex Parte DePetrillo et al
Ex Parte Fleming
Ex Parte Jacobs et al
Ex Parte Kido et al
Ex Parte Nelson et al
Ex Parte Klare et al
Ex Parte Mayhew et al
Ex Parte Megeid

REHEARING

Ex Parte MacKenzie et al


Friday, December 17, 2010

Friday December 17, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 10/422,823 WALSH 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE

1651
Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,206 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE

Obviousness requires finding that the prior art provided a reason for carrying out a claimed process, and provided a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed beneficial result. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.” Id.

Dow Chem. Co., In re, 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . 716.05, 2144.08

1618
Ex Parte Kanie 10/826,165 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER
YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1722 Ex Parte Mishima et al 10/748,979 OWENS 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hillier et al 10/865,250 HUGHES 103(a)Martin & Associates, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Ryan 11/156,156 TURNER 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

3664 Ex Parte Smartt 11/292,392 McCARTHY 102(b) RIM EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Watson 11/034,127 SONG 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES, INC. EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R

3715
Ex Parte Ziv-el et al 11/102,994 McCARTHY 103(a) JONES DAY EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3721 Ex Parte Berry et al 11/095,697 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Diamond 11/489,945 BAHR 103(a) Robert H. Epstein EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

Appellant's arguments appear to be predicated on a belief that a reference must describe a limitation in haec verba. There is no such requirement. See In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977). Further, there is no requirement that a reference must recognize all features of its invention. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985), aff'd mem., 795 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that the recognition of another advantage flowing naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise be obvious); see also In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979) (mere recognition of an inherent property in the prior art does not render patentable a known structure).

Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f), 2145, 2258

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

3627
Ex Parte Hammell 10/722,231 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

3627
Ex Parte Saukkonen et al 10/178,936 LORIN 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1724 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,824 11/430,299 6,033,542 ROBERTSON 251/102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

Appellant acknowledges that the Board’s recent decision in Ex parte Tanaka, 93 USPQ2d 1291 (BPAI 2009) (Precedential) is dispositive of this issue, but argues that because Tanaka is on appeal to the Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit, it is not binding on the instant case.
...


The specific wording used in §251 limits the scope of the Director's power to grant reissue patents only in situations in which the original patent is deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent. The Office's interpretation of §251 to disallow reissue applications that simply add narrower claims to the reissue patent when no assertion of inoperativeness or invalidity for the reasons set forth in §251 can be made by the patentee, is in keeping with the plain wording and scope of §251. Ex parte Tanaka, 93 USPQ2d at 1299 (emphasis in original).

[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted).

“Where a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113


Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED

1787 Ex Parte Aguirre 11/281,129 OWENS FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R
3672
Ex Parte Allen et al 11/419,964 McCARTHY SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON
1722
Ex Parte Aoshima et al 10/406,109 OWENS SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
1651
Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,279 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651
Ex Parte Bissery 11/149,178 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651
Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,372 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651
Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,410 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1771
Ex Parte Butler 11/650,282 TIMM FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D
1617
Ex Parte Guittard et al 11/828,028 LEBOVITZ WOODCOCK WASHBURN, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A
1617
Ex Parte Haas 11/455,964 GRIMES EUGENE S. INDYK EXAMINER HAGOPIAN, CASEY SHEA
1796
Ex Parte Harasin et al 11/304,265 OWENS BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER GILLESPIE, BENJAMIN
2612
Ex Parte Miller 11/199,758 KRIVAK REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER LAU, HOI CHING
3717
Ex Parte Moody 10/888,598 STAICOVICI JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL EXAMINER
HYLINSKI, STEVEN J
2187
Ex Parte Rogers 10/261,460 COURTENAY III HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN
1723
Ex Parte Tio 10/553,164 TIMM NAGUMO dissenting SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
1726
Ex Parte Watanabe et al 10/234,318 TIMM McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER
RHEE, JANE J
1715
Ex Parte Ye 10/547,740 TIMM MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Thursday December 16, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1600 Ex Parte Hirata et al 11/656,513 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2100 Ex Parte Lai 10/833,170 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) Smart & Biggar EXAMINER PAULA, CESAR B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Hsu et al 11/450,204 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER LEE, JAE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3600 Ex Parte Truong et al 10/905,209 FETTING 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3700 Ex Parte Viaud 11/611,223 HORNER 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3700 Ex Parte Doroski 11/358,442 STAICOVICI 103(a) SCOTT M. DOROSKI EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

3700
Ex Parte Vanderhye et al 11/251,773 BAHR 102(e) ROBERT A. VANDERHYE EXAMINER KERSHTEYN, IGOR

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Ex parte SIEMENS ENERGY, INC., Appellant 90/007,359 5,845,481 DELMENDO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SIEMENS CORPORATION FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TYLON PROTOTYPE, INC. EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

AFFIRMED

1600 Ex Parte Atkins 10/102,455 SPIEGEL EXAMINER LIN, JERRY
2400
Ex Parte Cyr et al 10/127,064 DANG EXAMINER POWERS, WILLIAM S
2100
Ex Parte Genkin et al 10/835,777 HOMERE EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
2800
Ex Parte Haaks et al 10/573,674 RUGGIERO EXAMINER DESTA, ELIAS
3600
Ex Parte Kiran 11/350,613 FETTING EXAMINER ABDI, KAMBIZ
3700
Ex Parte Roberts et al 10/036,022 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
2400
Ex Parte Syed et al 10/189,131 BLANKENSHIP / PARTHASARATHY, PRAMILA
3700
Ex Parte Thorpe et al 10/220,650 GRIMES EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
3700
Ex Parte Wehrstein et al 11/029,796 WALSH EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D
3700
Ex Parte Werve et al 11/256,574 ADAMS EXAMINER LUONG, PETER

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Wednesday December 15, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/401,151 NAGUMO SMITH TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Konetski et al 09/771,095 JEFFERY LUCAS THOMAS 102(a e)/103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER DALENCOURT, YVES

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Youngil Ha et al 11/199,994 KRIVAK BAUMEISTER MARTIN 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER TRAN, CONGVAN

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

3656 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11/393,870 BAHR MCCARTHY PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER PILKINGTON, JAMES

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Weitzel 11/398,307 BAHR MCCARTHY STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) SCOTT WEITZEL EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Hwang 10/847,643 MARTIN HAIRSTON WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) Sonosite, Inc. / Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Trasporto et al 11/381,684 BAUMEISTER HAHN NAPPI 102(b) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633
Ex Parte Bonds et al 10/267,112 BARRETT KERINS SILVERBERG 112(2)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) J. Michael Neary EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3612 Ex Parte Lemmons 11/537,392 HORNER O’NEILL STAICOVICI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KIRAN B

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3617 Ex parte TZONG IN YEH Appellant 90/009,119 6,988,920 SONG DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CLEMENT CHENG LAW OFFICE OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER OLSON, LARS A

"The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." 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." Id. (citations omitted). Hence, "when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535 (1972).

Where the resultant structure of the claimed invention is asserted to differ from that of the prior art, the burden is on the appellant to establish the distinction because "[a]s a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." Id.; see also In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974) (a lesser burden of proof for a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature, and burden shifts to the appellant to present evidence to establish any difference).

Brown, In re, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113, 2183

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113


EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3617 Ex parte TZONG IN YEH Appellant 90/009,130 7,326,094 SONG DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CLEMENT CHENG LAW OFFICE OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER OLSON, LARS A

In this regard, we further note that making elements of a device integral or separable is considered to be an obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965)

Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

AFFIRMED

3616 Ex Parte Baumann et al 10/217,092 KIMLIN EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D
1776
Ex Parte Kim et al 11/475,316 KIMLIN EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
3752
Ex Parte Miller et al 10/534,194 HORNER EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D