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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, February 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Vanderby et al PRATS 103(a) DEWITT ROSS & STEVENS SC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zhao et al FRANKLIN 103(a) Lynn Schwenning

The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Napier, In re, 55 F.3d 610, 34 USPQ2d 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Kariya BLANKENSHIP 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Katayama HAIRSTON 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Miyata BAUMEISTER 112(1)/112(2)/112(6) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WESTERMAN HATTORI DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Gruchala et al HAIRSTON 103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – GB

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Fukuizumi HAIRSTON 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Morsa CRAWFORD 112(2)/112(6)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Steve Morsa

Ex Parte Allen et al BARRETT 112(1)/103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dutt et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/non-statutory obviousness type double-patenting MHKKG/SUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Disney HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. BEREZNAK

A reference may not be antedated by a Rule 131 affidavit or declaration that shows that Applicant had invented, prior to the reference date, a part, some parts, or even a combination of parts, if the part or parts are not within the scope of the claims being sought by Applicant. In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 833 (CCPA 1965).

Tanczyn, In re, 347 F.2d 830, 146 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
715.02

Ex Parte Lee LORIN 101/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Azar et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PRTSI

Ex Parte Stiles BAHR 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

Thursday, February 25, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ota et al FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Tachibana et al JEFFERY 102(e) IBM CORPORATION

Ex Parte Dettinger et al BARRY 102(e) IBM CORPORATION

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Williams et al KRIVAK 103(a) INTEL/BSTZBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.

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

Ex Parte Kawai CRAWFORD 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

Ex Parte KANE LORIN 102(b) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Barrese MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Roberts et al EASTHOM 102(e) GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ, LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Zhang et al PATE III 112(1)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

The accepted definition of the term “connected” is restricted to neither a direct nor an indirect connection, and it is therefore applicable to an indirect connection. Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d 698, 700, 64 USPQ 580, 581 (CCPA 1945).

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Remias et al MILLS 103(a) Lyondell Basell Industries


When evaluating claims for obviousness, "the prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill." In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, "‘[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’" Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Ex Parte Takei et al MILLS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

Ex Parte Zheng et al LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION

Ex Parte Cherepinsky et al LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/102(f)/102(b)/103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

It is well established that working examples are not required to comply with § 112, first paragraph. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908 (CCPA 1970).

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174


Ex Parte Minna et al PRATS 112(1)/103(a) STEVEN L. HIGHLANDER FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Khoo et al DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Krajewski et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD

Ex Parte Matsa et al JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L.

Ex Parte Anonsen et al BARRETT 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

Ex Parte Bitsch et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

Ex Parte Fish et al COURTENAY 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte Igarashi BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hanes HOFF 103(a) Hewlett-Packard Company

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ortiz et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP

Ex Parte Williams et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./LEAR CORPORATION

Ex Parte Zhang et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 CFR § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

The attachment of a value is an abstraction. Cf. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 943:

Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal
obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot
meet the machine-ortransformation test to determine patent-eligibility of
process claims, because they are not physical objects or substances, and they
are not representative of physical objects or substances.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Rioux et al O’NEILL 102(b) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP

Ex Parte Sabbagh STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Harnack et al SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Hashmi et al PRATS 112(2)/103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sumiya et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Haeberle et al HOMERE 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation

Ex Parte Berke et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Bonilla COURTENAY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Brown et al JEFFERY 102(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)

Ex Parte Novaes JEFFERY 101/112(1)/103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

Ex Parte Vandersluis BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mayer et al NAPPI 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Burkhart et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Das FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

Ex Parte Lambert et al LORIN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN

Ex Parte Menon et al LORIN 102(e) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Favet et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK

Ex Parte Ferree STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C



Tuesday, February 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lowman et al ADAMS 103(a) ROBERT L. MCDOWELL

Ex Parte Pastan et al GREEN 112(1) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP

Ex Parte Slimak SCHEINER 112(1) NOVAK, DRUCE & QUIGG LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Lubbers et al DIXON 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Martinez et al BARRY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Chater-Lea HAHN 103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MOTOROLA, INC.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Goujon et al O’NEILL 103(a) WESTERNGECO L.L.C. KEVIN MCENANEY

Ex Parte Marui HORNER improper recapture KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

If a patentee attempts to “recapture” what the patentee previously surrendered in order to obtain allowance of original patent claims, that “deliberate withdrawal or amendment … cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.” Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc. , 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545 (Ct. Cl. 1966)); see also Hester Industries Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . 1412.02

Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.02

Ex Parte Miller CRAWFORD 102(b) Siemens Corporation

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lindgren MEDLEY 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Holland KRIVAK 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Kim GARRIS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fulks STAICOVICI 103(a) RICHARD D. FUERLE

Ex Parte Eschenburg LEE 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ferree STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C

Saturday, February 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Crooks et al FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

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

Ex Parte Yamamoto et al KIMLIN 103(a) CIBA CORPORATION

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Lynch et al THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WAYNE JONES

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

Ex Parte Sato DIXON 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Maeda FISCHETTI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Buechi et al DELMENDO 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS SCHWEIZ AG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Schmidt DIXON 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC

Friday, February 19, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chang et al LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Tieu et al MOHANTY 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NIXON PEABODY, LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Grimm et al MEDLEY 103(a) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Newport FISCHETTI 102(e) IBM CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Rotundo et al MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) CARDINAL LAW GROUP

Thursday, February 18, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Buge et al KIMLIN 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

Ex Parte Greco et al TIMM 103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C.

Ex Parte Hong et al KRATZ 103(a) PAUL AND PAUL

Ex Parte Luhmann et al GARRIS 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Song TIMM 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sheffler et al STAICOVICI 103(a) KENNAMETAL INC.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Youngs et al STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Geczy WALSH 103(a) DENNISON, SCHULTZ & MACDONALD

Ex Parte Maurer et al GRIMES 112(1) K&L GATES LLP

Ex Parte Melkonian et al WALSH 102(b)/103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sompalli et al KRATZ 112(1)/112(2) General Motors Corporationc/o REISING, ETHINGTON, BARNES, KISSELLE, P.C.

Ex Parte Balthazor et al ROBERTSON 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Efland et al COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.

Ex Parte Piwonka BARRY 103(a) HEWLETT- PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brandsma et al HORNER 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Echols et al WALSH 112(2)/103(a) PATRICK R. SCANLONPRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Burch et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kersten et al JEFFERY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC

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

Thursday, February 11, 2010

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Matsubara et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

“It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.”
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). When “a claimed new benefit or characteristic of an invention otherwise in the prior art” is an inherent property of the old invention, “the new realization alone does not render the old invention patentable.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp. , 432 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A] limitation or the entire invention is inherent and in the public domain if it is the ‘natural result flowing from’ the explicit disclosure of the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).

As summarized in Perricone, Id. at 1375-76:

A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc. , 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Thus, a prior art reference without express reference to a claim limitation may nonetheless anticipate by inherency. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig. , 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claims limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Moreover, “[I]nherency is not necessarily coterminous with knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art.” Id. ; see also Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms. , 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art) (citing In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d at 1351; MEHL/Biophile, 192 F.3d at 1366).

“Thus, when considering a prior art method, the anticipation doctrine examines the natural and inherent results in that method without regard to the full recognition of those benefits or characteristics within the art field at the time of the prior art disclosure.” Id. at 1378.

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . .
2144.05

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02

Saturday, February 6, 2010

REVERSED

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

Ex Parte Kershaw et al COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

However, we note that functional equivalence is not enough to show anticipation of a structural component (such as the claimed memory management unit). See In re Ruskin, 347 F.2d 843, 846 (CCPA 1965) (“the functional equivalent is not enough to be a full anticipation of the specific device claimed by appellant.”).

Ruskin, In re, 354 F.2d 395, 148 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.01

Ex Parte Tsyrganovich HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte McLoughlin et al O’NEILL 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

In other words, it is improper to base a conclusion of obviousness upon facts gleaned only through hindsight. “To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Id. (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

Ex Parte Rohrer et al O’NEILL 103(a) QUARLES & BRADY LLP

To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, prior art references must suggest expressly or impliedly the claimed invention or an Examiner must present a “convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned “convincing line of reasoning.” Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ at 973.

Clapp, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 972(Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1985). . . . . . 706.02(j), 2144

Ex Parte Allison et al McCARTHY 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

Ex Parte Eves et al SILVERBERG 103(a) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte De Bosscher et al ROBERTSON 103(a) Barnes & Thornburg LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Pulli et al SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Farwell et al SILVERBERG 102(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

Friday, February 5, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Wanka et al KIMLIN 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Foster et al J. THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Boyd et al TURNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50b PERKINS COIE LLP

However, when the claimed structure performs differently from the prior art, a finding of obvious design choice is precluded. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art).

Ex Parte Weedling et al BAHR 103(a) John J. Marshall Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hayden HORNER 102(b) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Nakatsuka BLANKENSHIP 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Thursday, February 4, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Van Den Brink et al GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kakizaki et al TIMM 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Cho et al KRIVAK 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY, L.L.P.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Fujimori HOFF 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971), sets forth the burden of proof required to overcome an inherency rejection:

[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or
property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a
claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally,
where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation
asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter
may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the
authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be
in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. [439 F.2d at
212-13, 58 CCPA at 1031, 169 USPQ at 229.] This burden was involved in
In re
Ludtke
, 441 F.2d 660, 58 CCPA 1159, 169 USPQ 563 (1971), and is applicable to
product and process claims reasonably considered as possessing the allegedly
inherent characteristics.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977).

Swinehart, In re, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . .2114, 2173.01, 2173.05(g) , 2183

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bloom et al LORIN obviousness-type double patenting/112(2)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON PC

Ex Parte Jain et al FETTING 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) McGinn & Gibb PLLC

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gatfield et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) AKERMAN SENTERFITT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dossas et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) Clifford Kraft

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

Ex Parte Graute et al McCARTHY 103(a) MATTHIAS SCHOLL

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Haldar et al WALSH 103(a) INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ.

Ex Parte Hedding-Eckerich FREDMAN 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREGORY TUROCY AMIN & TUROCY

However, a preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Ex Parte Vesper PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C.

Moreover, "[i]f the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
On the other hand:

If . . . the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete
invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct
definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely
states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the
preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said
to constitute or explain a claim limitation.
Id.


Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Singleton et al LUCAS 112(1)/103(a) ALEXANDER J. BURKE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Kaplan HOFF 103(a) KYOCERA Wireless Corp.

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

Ex Parte Graute et al McCARTHY 103(a) MATTHIAS SCHOLL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Englebienne et al FREDMAN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kuenzner LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

"This court has held in a number of decisions that a United States patent speaks for all it discloses as of its filing date, even when used in combination with other references." In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 926 (CCPA, 1964) (internal citations omitted).

Zenitz, In re, 333 F.2d 924, 142 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(f)

Ex Parte Linder DIXON 102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Chandrashekhar et al HOFF 112(2)/103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.

In determining the scope of the claim, a claim limitation within an ‘adapted to,’ ‘adapted for,’ ‘wherein’ and “whereby’ clause that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or limit the structure may be ignored. Specifically, "a ‘whereby’ clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited” Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, the court held that when a "'whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention" Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. , 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . .2111.04, 2133.03(c)


Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Lansac SONG 102(b) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP

Monday, February 1, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Choi et al KRATZ 103(a) JOHN L. CORDANI CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP

Ex Parte Henninge et al WARREN 103(a)/ obviousness-type double patenting OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Oshiyama et al HASTINGS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Anthe et al SAADAT 103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kordel et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Abusamra et al BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

Ex Parte Sharp CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP

A proper claim interpretation gives full effect to the recitation of two distinct elements in the claimed structure. Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Buban et al STEPHENS 102(e) MICROSOFT CORPORATION

“Teaching away” is irrelevant to anticipation. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp. , 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted) (“[T]he question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”).

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Halim et al STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DUKE W. YEE

Ex Parte Poletto et al BAUMEISTER non-statutory double patenting/103(a) Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o Park, Vaughan & Fleming LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Morciniec et al CRAWFORD 101/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Banbury et al MILLS 102(b)/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP

The determination of whether a "whereby" clause or similar clause1 is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.
Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. , 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Hoffer, the court held that when a "whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id.

1 See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3] stating that an "adapted to" clause is subject to a similar claim interpretation.

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

Ex Parte Paskar SCHEINER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP