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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, January 29, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Den Boestert et al GAUDETTE 102(b) SHELL OIL COMPANY

Ex Parte Clark et al OWENS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

Ex Parte Heilek et al GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP

"Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2141.01(a)

Ex Parte Hennige et al WARREN 103(a) OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and case cited therein (the term comprising "simply means that the device may contain elements in addition to those explicitly mentioned in the claim").

Ex Parte Maev et al SMITH 112(1) DAIMLERCHRYSLER

Ex Parte Propst Jr OWENS 102(e)/103(a) Novak, Druce & Quigg LLP

Ex Parte SAITO et al KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Collignon et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte PARKER et al COURTENAY 103(a) Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte SUORSA et al BARRY 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte YOSHIDA et al HAHN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, P.L.C.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Asho et al SAADAT 103(a) LENOVO - JVL C/O VANLEEUWEN & VANLEEUWEN

Ex Parte Imaoka et al PATE III 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte ZHANG et al OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte ZIEGLER et al MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Johnson BAHR 112(2)/102(b) HOLLAND & HART, LLP

Ex Parte Keene et al WALSH 102(b)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION)

Ex Parte MURCIA et al FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HESS PATENT LAW FIRM, P.C.

A human being cannot constitute a “means”. Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 412 F.3d 1291, 1300, (C.A.Fed.), 2005 (citing to Application of Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393,1398 (CCPA 1969)) (means plus function language does not encompass the human being as the ‘means’ in any part thereof).


Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181

Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Caluori O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) BRIAN M. DINGMAN, ESQ. MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP

Ex Parte Heiman PATE III 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte PRAKASH TIMM 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

Ex Parte SAVAS COLAIANNI 103(a) PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte MASSEY WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102(b)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH

2600 Communications
Ex Parte DUNKO BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.

Ex Parte KARAOGUZ MARTIN 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte ABRAMSON NAPPI 103(a) DAVID J COLE E INK CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte HALL HORNER 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.

Ex Parte JEONG PATE III 102(b)/103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

Thursday, January 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Johnston et al MILLS 112(1)/101 ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP

Ex Parte Jones et al ADAMS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Mathea OWENS 103(a) KLAUS J. BACH

Ex Parte Neumann et al KIMLIN 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.

Ex Parte Waki GAUDETTE 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

Ex Parte Van Damme et al GARRIS 103(a) AGFA c/o KEATING & BENNETT, LLP

Ex Parte Font et al KIMLIN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) OWENS CORNING

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Gruber et al SIU 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

Ex Parte Zhang et al DIXON 102(e)/102(b) SUGHRUE-265550

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Zhang et al GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/102(e) SHERIDAN ROSS PC

In In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962), the court noted that the description of a broad generic formula, without more, even though encompassing Appellants’ claims, did not serve as an anticipatory disclosure. Id. at 681.

Petering, In re, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . 2131.02, 2131.03, 2144.08

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bush et al PRATS 103(a) ELI LILLY & COMPANY

In the context of preparing alternative forms of prior art compounds, however, the court in In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664 (CCPA 1966), reversed an obviousness rejection where the Examiner had concluded that the claims were merely directed to a crystalline form of an old compound. See id. at 666.

Cofer, In re, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268(CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2144.04


As Appellants point out, the court in In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d at 274 similarly held that "the absence of a known or obvious process for making the claimed compounds overcomes a presumption that the compounds are obvious, based on close relationships between their structures and those of prior art compounds."

Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02, 2144.09, 2145

Ex Parte Herweijer et al GRIMES 102(b) ROCHE MADISON INC.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fredriksson et al OWENS 103(a) CAPITOL CITY TECHLAW, PLLC

Ex Parte Jimbo et al GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Morita et al FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

Ex Parte Sridharan et al KRATZ 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Akiwumi-Assani et al BLANKENSHIP 102(e) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING

Ex Parte Rosenpflanzer et al SIU 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP

Enablement

It is relatively simple for an inventor to comply with the written description requirement. Moore, 439 F.2d at 1236. This requirement will ordinarily demand minimal concern. Id. “What is of maximum concern . . . is whether [the] disclosure contains sufficient teaching[s] regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and to use the claimed invention.” Id. “The relevant inquiry may be summed up as being whether the scope of enablement provided to one of ordinary skill in the art by the disclosure is such as to be commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.” Id.

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Crump HOMERE 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Pan et al HOFF 103(a) VERIZON

Ex Parte Van Haver HAIRSTON 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sahota et al TURNER 102(e)/103(a) Quarles & Brady LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hammond et al O’NEILL 103(a) PARFOMAK, ANDREW N. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PA

Ex Parte Opris HORNER 102(b)/103(a) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Pan et al NAGUMO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

We therefore accept the Examiner’s findings as true for the purposes of this appeal. Cf. In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (a finding not shown by the Appellant to be erroneous may be accepted as fact.)

Ex Parte Pau et al HASTINGS 103(a) HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Diamond et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) GOSZ AND PARTNERS LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bonn et al ROBERTSON 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

“[The] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.” In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019 (CCPA 1977).

The notion that one who fully discloses, and teaches those skilled in the
art how to make and use, a genus and numerous species therewithin, has somehow
failed to disclose, and teach those skilled in the art how to make and use, that
genus minus two of those species, and has thus failed to satisfy the requirement
of s [sic] 112, first paragraph, appears to result from a hypertechnical
application of legalistic prose relating to that provision of the statute.
Id.

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)

Ex Parte Harasin et al GAUDETTE 112(1) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC

The Examiner cites Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (BPAI 1993) in support of his contention that “when a negative limitation is set forth without direct support from the specification, it is not reasonable to infer that one had possession of the claimed invention.” (Ans. 5.) Appellants point out the Examiner has misapprehended our decision in Ex parte Parks. (Reply Brief (“Rep. Br.”), filed July 29, 2008, 4.) Contrary to the Examiner’s contention, Ex parte Parks supports Appellants’ position that the mere absence of literal support for the claimed “isocyanate-reactive component which is free of amine groups” (claims 1 and 11) “does not, in and of itself, establish a prima facie case for lack of adequate descriptive support under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.” Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d at 1236 (citations omitted).

Ex parte Tanaka

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

Ex Parte Hoarau OWENS 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Pinkowski et al KIMLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750

Ex Parte Rawlins et al TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC

Ex Parte van Rossum et al TIMM 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.

Ex Parte Verity ROBERTSON 103(a) Michael F. Petock, Esquire

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Huang et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C.

The issue to consider when determining whether a non-statutory basis exists for a double patenting rejection is whether any claim in the application defines an invention that is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in another patent.1 The analysis employed in an obviousness-type double patenting determination parallels the guidelines for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 593-94 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Longi, In re, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Ex Parte Kim SIU 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP

Ex Parte Butcher et al HUGHES 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Nixon & Vanderhye, PC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Willehadson et al HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Owen et al HAHN 102(e)/103(a) Eric T. Jones Reising Ethington Barnes Kisselle Learman & McCulloch

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Koppenhoehl et al STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

Ex Parte Scheier et al LORIN 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kivlighn et al GREEN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

Ex Parte Mills et al GRIMES 112(1)/102(b) HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lessley et al PAK 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MR. DONALD J. BREH GROUP TECHNOLOGY COUNSEL ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.

Ex Parte Smotkin GAUDETTE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Appellant has persuasively argued that the holdings in Ex Parte Simpson 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982) and Ex Parte Fressola 27 USPQ2d 1608 (BPAI 1993) do not apply to the facts in this appeal.

In Ex Parte Simpson, we held that if a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim scope does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 218 USPQ at 1022. "Nafion®" is not used in claim 84 to identify or describe a particular material or product. Rather, "Nafion® is simply a label on a depicted graph and the word Nafion® is used simply to refer to the label." (App. Br. 8.)

Simpson, Ex parte, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(d) , 2173.05(u)

In Ex Parte Fressola, we held that "[i]ncorporation into the claims by express reference to the specification and/or drawings is not permitted except in very limited circumstances." 27 USPQ2d at 1609. Claim 84 "does not incorporate by reference a figure or table, it displays the figure and pinpoints the elements of the figure that relate to the limitations of the claim." (App. Br. 9.)

Fressola, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . .2173.05(r) , 2173.05(s)

Ex Parte Blank et al HASTINGS 103(a) DOUGLAS S. FOOTE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION NCR CORPORATION

Ex Parte Booten et al HANLON 102(b)/103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Choudhary et al HUGHES 101/112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP Steven M. Greenberg

Claims directed to data structures per se are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

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

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chua et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte ONG CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis

Ex Parte Vick et al HORNER 102(b) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lowe et al O’NEILL 102(e)/102(b) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.

VACATED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lancefield J. Thomas 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.

Friday, January 22, 2010

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Brasz et al BAHR 103(a) MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP

Ex Parte Gunderson KERINS 102(b)/103(a) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C.

Ex Parte Mann et al PATE III 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Averill et al DIXON 103(a) ROBERT R. WILLIAMS IBM CORPORATION

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ernest et al MOHANTY 101/112(2)/102(a)/102(e) George R. Pettit Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP

Ex Parte Foster et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) QUINN LAW GROUP, PLLC

Appellants also contend that Kundermann teaches away from the axial groove of claim 1. App. Br. 15-16. Because teaching away is irrelevant to anticipation, this argument is unpersuasive. See Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Ex Parte Hance et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

Thursday, January 21, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Moyer DIXON 101/103(a) PREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

Here, the processor recited in claim 1 is programmed to process data processing instructions in a particular way, i.e., forming an immediate value/operand of 32 bits with only one instruction (FF 1). Therefore, we conclude that the processor claimed in claim 1 is a “particular machine” within the meaning of the M/T test. Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 satisfies the machine prong of the M/T test. 1

1 We do not need to go through the transformation prong of the M/T test after the machine prong of M/T test is passed.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Blair et al BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.

Ex Parte Chang et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte van't Hooft GREEN 112(1)/103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD

The Examiner must therefore “determine[] the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2005) (emphasis added) (quoting In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, “[c]laims are not to be read in a vacuum[;] while it is true they are to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, their terms still have to be given the meaning called for by the specification of which they form a part.” In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984 (CCPA 1974).

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

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Pogue et al MARTIN 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ballevre et al GREEN 103(a) K&L GATES LLP

Moreover, the Examiner must consider all of the claim limitations in setting forth a rejection over the prior art. See, e.g., In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (CCPA 1974) (in considering grounds of rejection, “every limitation in the claim must be given effect rather than considering one in isolation from the others.”).

Ex Parte Markman et al SCHEINER 103(a) MODERN TIMES LEGAL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Choi et al OWENS 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Ex Parte Jiang HASTINGS 112(1) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

It is well established that the content of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance with the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Kaslow, 707 F. 2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Kaslow, In re, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(v), 2141.02, 2161.01, 2163.02

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Kushnick HOMERE 103(a) CREDENCE C/O MURABITO HAO BARNES, LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Brown et al NAPPI 102(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Uchida et al KRIVAK 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Chapman et al SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) JASON D. KELLY SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A.

Ex Parte Dalton WALSH 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS

Ex Parte Denison PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP

Ex Parte Grady et al KERINS 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (P & W)

The established precedent of our reviewing court sets up a two-fold test for determining whether art is analogous: “First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Deminski, In re, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

Ex Parte Williams et al SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/102(e) MEDICINELODGE INC.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kiefer et al GRIMES 112(1)/102(e) SHERIDAN ROSS PC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Drunert OWENS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.

Ex Parte Finkelshtain et al OWENS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Goodwin et al MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hansen et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG

Monday, January 18, 2010

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Coverstar, Inc. LEE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC

Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily operates exactly as claimed, then the claimed invention is met. MEHL/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999). That a claim feature may possibly, or even probably, result from the prior art is not sufficient to show inherency. Id. The Examiner must make out a prima facie case, through evidence or explanation, that what is urged as inherent necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art before the burden is shifted to an applicant to disprove the inherency theory. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) . . . . . . .1206, 2112.02, 2131.01

Friday, January 15, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte El Bakkouri et al GREEN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

Thus, the claim requires treatment of a chronic immune disease, and not a symptom of such a disease, for example the symptom of chronic fatigue in CFS. See Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that "‘treatment of sleep apnea[]’" was properly interpreted as limited to the underlying apnea itself; claim term did not include treatment of anxiety that can occur secondary to sleep apnea).

Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 59 USPQ2d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . .
2111.01

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Pircher et al HANLON 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Duisenberg BARRETT 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

"[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145

Ex Parte Error et al LUCAS 102(e) RAUBVOGEL LAW OFFICE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Banerjee et al STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)C/O VAN LEEUWEN & VAN LEEUWEN

According to the single source rule, all the claim's limitations must be contained in a single reference, see, e.g., Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and the reference "must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient clarity and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art and that such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." Crown Operations Int'l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 60 USPQ2d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rush et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HOGAN & HARTSON LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gueret LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

“Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02

Thursday, January 14, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Biles J. THOMAS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Wu et al SAADAT 103(a) MACPHERSON KWOK CHEN & HEID LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Haas PAK 103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Murren et al BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/102(e) LEE & HAYES PLLC

For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184

Ex Parte Ryan et al COURTENAY 102(e) LISA K. JORGENSON STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 48 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Moran et al BARRY 102(e) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

"[A]nticipation is a question of fact." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.'" In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)). Furthermore, "[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed." In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).

Hyatt, In re, 211 F.3d 1367, 54 USPQ2d1664 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2111

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

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

Wiggins, In re, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973) . . . . .2121.02, 2131.04, 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hollis et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

Ex Parte Seidita O’NEILL 102(b) KNOBLE, YOSHIDA & DUNLEAVY

A predecessor to our reviewing court stated that a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) citing In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847 (CCPA 1974) (the staggered cheese slices case); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947); In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 988 (CCPA 1933).

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Herold et al SCHEINER 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Alivisatos et al TIMM 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP

see also In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant's claimed invention has not been explained).

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

Ex Parte Pires KIMLIN 103(a) Paul F. Wille Cantor Colburn, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Crain et al BARRETT 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte BLUMENAU et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC

Descriptive material is not entitled to patentable weight unless there is a functional relationship to the substrate. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d Fed. Cir. R. 36 June 12, 2006). Here, a data structure is only an arrangement of data that bears no functional relationship to the substrate (computer readable medium) that stores the data and it is not entitled to patentable weight.

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Samper et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C.

Also, the Examiner cannot establish inherency merely by demonstrating that the asserted limitation is probable or possible. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). “If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” Id. (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)).

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

1635 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Eljamal et al WALSH 102(e)/103(a) NOVARTIS

“The combination of elements from nonanalogous sources, in a manner that reconstructs the applicant’s invention only with the benefit of hindsight, is insufficient to present a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.01(d), 1504.01(a), 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07