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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Friedlander et al SCHEINER 102(e) OLSON & HIERL, LTD.

Ex Parte Inchley et al PRATS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

Ex Parte Malmsten et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Abelli et al SMITH 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Ex Parte Bi et al OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Driml et al KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.

Ex Parte Schmidt et al KRATZ 103(a) BASF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Ex Parte Shelley et al OWENS 103(a) Dority & Manning, P.A.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Hakala et al BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.

Ex Parte Kimelman et al BARRETT 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte Yoshida et al STEPHENS 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Hayward WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Teo et al McCARTHY 102(e) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Freudenberg et al STAICOVICI 103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC

Ex Parte Walworth et al McCARTHY 103(a) MADAN & SRIRAM, PC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gabbay BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.

Ex parte SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LEE 103(a) Seagate Technology LLC

Ex Parte Umebayashi BOALICK 102(b) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Greeson et al McCOLLUM 112(1)/102(b) ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Harada et al OWENS 103(a) Cheng Law Group, PLLC

Ex Parte McCutcheon et al FRANKLIN 102(b) HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP

Ex Parte Taniguchi et al ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Brown HUGHES 112(2)/102(b)/103(a)/101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Downing et al BARRETT 103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Friesen et al FISCHETTI 103(a) K&L Gates LLP

Ex Parte Schaefer et al CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2) THOMPSON HINE L.L.P.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Goldberg et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP

Ex Parte Ramji et al GREEN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

Ex Parte Zauderer et al SCHEINER 103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ko KRATZ 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ex Parte Duffy KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because "that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment." In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id.

Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06

Ex Parte McCormick ROBERTSON 103(a) Thompson Coburn LLP

Ex Parte Barhorst et al GARRIS 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Chandhoke et al BARRY 102(e)/103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Nazzal WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o Park, Vaughan & Fleming LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Burbidge et al NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MOTOROLA INC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Zheng BAUMEISTER 103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

Any judgment on obvious that is based on knowledge gleaned solely from Appellant’s disclosure is improper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

Ex Parte Lan et al HAHN 102(b)/103(a) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES, L.L.P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Francis CRAWFORD 102(e) WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Carstens SONG 102(b)/103(a) Hasse & Nesbitt LLC

Ex Parte Kucera et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a) WARN, HOFFMANN, MILLER & LALONE, .P.C

Ex Parte Olson et al PATE III 102(a)/102(b)/103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

Ex Parte Schalk O’NEILL 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE LLP

Ex Parte Wong McCARTHY 103(a) SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD.


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wollenberg WALSH 103(a) M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

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

Ex Parte Katzenmaier et al TURNER 103(a) 3m Innovative Properties Company

Ex Parte Post et al PATE 112(1)/103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP

Monday, March 29, 2010

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gradtke et al ADAMS 112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kende et al LORIN 102(e) MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC

Thursday, March 25, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Aoki et al ADAMS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

"Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties . . . can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1987).


Chupp, In re, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . .716.01(d), 716.02(a), 2145

Ex Parte Brahmbhatt LEBOVITZ 103(a) AIR LIQUIDE

Ex Parte McDevitt et al LEBOVITZ 112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

Ex Parte Yun et al SCHEINER 102(b) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

"[T]he examiner must provide some evidence or scientific reasoning to establish the reasonableness of the examiner’s belief that the functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art" before the burden is shifted to Applicants to disprove the inherency. Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788, 1789 (BPAI 1986).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Runge et al DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.

Ex Parte Mao et al PAK 102(b)/103(a) DUGAN & DUGAN, P.C.

Ex Parte Champ et al NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP

Ex Parte Chen et al HANLON 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Henderson et al TURNER 102(e) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

Ex Parte Lahiri TURNER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder

Ex Parte Wahlbin et al CRAWFORD 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Laing SONG 102(b)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA

Ex Parte Schaller et al McCARTHY 103(a) GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C.

Monday, March 22, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Grawe et al SPIEGEL 103(a) BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.

Ex Parte Mahant et al ADAMS 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC

Ex Parte Mahant et al ADAMS 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kim et al TIMM 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM

Ex Parte Rodrigues et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC.

Ex Parte Bakke HASTINGS 103(a) non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting CABOT CORPORATION

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Francis et al DANG 101/103(a) U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND MATERIEL COMMAND

Ex Parte Murray et al BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Amano et al MOHANTY 102(b)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS ROSENMAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Perini KERINS 103(a) McGLEW & TUTTLE, P.C.

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness can not be established by attacking references individually where rejections are based on combinations of references).


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

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.02, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2144.09, 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Jones et al PRATS 103(a) OSHA LIANG/MI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Saklecha et al THOMAS 102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.

Ex Parte Iliff DANG 101/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Maughan et al CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation

Friday, March 19, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Den Hartog et al GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

Ex Parte Li McCOLLUM 101/112(1) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Section 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and specific. A substantial utility requires:

show[ing] that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current
form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research.
Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use
must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available
benefit to the public.
In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id. In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an asserted use must also show that [the] claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.
[T]he PTO has the initial burden of challenging a presumptively correct
assertion of utility in the disclosure. Only after the PTO provides evidence
showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the
asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant to provide rebuttal
evidence sufficient to convince such a person of the invention’s asserted
utility.
In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

“Enablement, or utility, is determined as of the application filing date.”
Id. at 1567 n.19. However, post-filing evidence “can be used to substantiate any doubts as to the asserted utility [when it] pertains to the accuracy of a statement already in the specification.” Id.

In addition, “[i]t is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.”
In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1378.

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . .
.2106, 2107.01

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01,2107.03, 2164.01(c),2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte McDonnell et al OWENS 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP

Ex Parte Nishizawa et al OWENS 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Rovito et al GARRIS 102(b) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.

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

Ex Parte Lettmann et al PAK 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Lewin et al HOFF 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Zhou et al MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Eurlings et al MARTIN 102(b)/102(e) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cox et al STAICOVICI 103(a) REED SMITH LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bhatti et al PATE III 102/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Ex Parte Kalloo et al HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE PC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Watler et al SIU 101/102(e)/103(a) FROST BROWN TODD, LLC

Thursday, March 18, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Boyd et al COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Kasperchik et al COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Klotz ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) Henry M. Feiereisen, LLC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

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

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sarkkinen et al NAPPI 102(e) DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mileti et al McCARTHY 103(a) PRICE, HENNEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP

Ex Parte Peyrelevade et al LORIN 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, Jan. 26, 2010, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC.htm#ref2 .

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Delantar COLAIANNI 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

Ex Parte Gudas et al ROBERTSON 103(a) WRIGLEY & DREYFUS 28455 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

Ex Parte Menovcik et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Fenrich et al HAHN 112(2)/103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Breed SONG 102(b)/103(a) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ

Particular embodiments appearing in the written description must not be read into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).


Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01

Ex Parte Simon LORIN 102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rinker et al SCHEINER 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Ex Parte Fulton et al PRATS 103(a) DEWITT ROSS & STEVENS SC

Ex Parte Houze FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP

Ex Parte Houze FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER, LLP

Ex Parte Houze FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Anchier COURTENAY 103(a) FENWICK & WEST LLP

Ex Parte Bigus et al BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Itagi et al NAPPI 103(a) LARA A. NORTHROP PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Classen et al HORNER 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION

Ex Parte Feeley TURNER 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP

Ex Parte Webster STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC

Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg.Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte McLisky O’NEILL 103(a) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lorens et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Andreev et al LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS

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

Ex parte BUFFALOSTONE, INC. LEE 112(2)/103(a) SANTANGELO LAW OFFICES, P.C.

Ex Parte Feeley et al TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cypher JEFFERY 102(b) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun)

Ex Parte Goodwin et al THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

Ex Parte Henning et al HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) LSI Corporation C/O Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC

Ex Parte Liebl et al THOMAS 101/102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Molaro CRAWFORD 103(a) Jonathan O. Owens HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP

Ex Parte Schlotterbeck et al CRAWFORD 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Ex Parte Yi et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SCOTT T. PIERING CARGILL, INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte McLisky O’NEILL 102(b) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Snyder et al GRIMES 103(a) NOVARTIS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Abdo BARRETT 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Cordery et al SAADAT 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) Pitney Bowes Inc.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Marsh et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Baba et al HORNER 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP

Ex Parte Elmer et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

Ex Parte Mullani MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) Christopher J. McDonald HOFFMAN, WASSON & GITLER, P.C.

Monday, March 15, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Giroud MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Hasenzahl et al GREEN 103(a) VENABLE LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Albu et al KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

Ex Parte Dawes et al GARRIS 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA

Ex Parte Yueh et al ROBERTSON 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

Arts based on chemical reactions may be unpredictable. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (C.C.P.A. 1970). “In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved.” Id.

Fisher, In re, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18(CCPA 1970) . . . . .706.03(w), 2164.01(b), 2164.03, 2164.08, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(t)

2164.03 Relationship of Predictability of the Art and the Enablement Requirement

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Umbehocker et al DIXON 103(a) B. NOEL KIVLIN MEYERTONS, HOOD, KILVIN, LOWERT, & KLUTH, P.A.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Li MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

Ex Parte Wee et al RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Weng et al HOFF 103(a) KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Abraham-Fuchs et al LORIN 102(b)/103(a) KLAUS ABRAHAM-FUCHS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dannenmaier et al HANLON 102(b)/103(a) Pearne & Gordon LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Algesheimer et al LORIN 102(e) LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR)





Friday, March 12, 2010

REVERSED

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Kumar HAIRSTON 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.

The fact that a claim does not contain further limiting language is a matter of breadth, not indefiniteness. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977).

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

Ex Parte Graupner HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Agostini et al PATE III 103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP

Ex Parte D'Andrea et al SILVERBERG 103(a) PETER K. SOMMER, ESQ. PHILLIPS, LYTLE, HITCHCOCK, BLAINE & HUBER LLP

Ex Parte Demar et al O’NEILL 102/103(a) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT

Ex Parte GREEN BARRETT 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.

Ex Parte Jones SILVERBERG 103(a) DANE C. BUTZER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Meyers et al BLANKENSHIP 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Shui HORNER 102(b)/103(a) JEROME R. DROUILLARD

Ex Parte Wendt-Ginsberg et al SILVERBERG 103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP

Thursday, March 11, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Cheney et al KIMLIN 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Hoang COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) ADELI & TOLLEN, LLP

Conception has been defined as “the complete performance of the mental part of the inventive act” and it is “the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice . . . . ” Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292, 295 (CCPA 1930).

Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292, 4 USPQ 269 (CCPA 1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2138.04

Ex Parte Kimelman et al BARRETT 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kondo et al STAICOVICI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP

Ex parte CATERPILLAR, INC. LEE 103(a) CATERPILLAR c/o LIELL, MCNEIL & HARPER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Guler et al LORIN 102(b)/103(a) 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Kaneko et al LORIN 103(a)/101 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

Ex Parte Terry et al STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP

Moreover, there is no per se rule that "double inclusion" is improper in a claim. In re Kelly, 305 F.2d 909, 916 (CCPA 1962) ("Automatic reliance upon a 'rule against double inclusion' will lead to as many unreasonable interpretations as will automatic reliance upon a 'rule allowing double inclusion'. The governing consideration is not double inclusion, but rather is what is a reasonable construction of the language of the claims.") Emphasis added.

Kelly, In re, 305 F.2d 909, 134 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1962). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(o)

Ex Parte Walker et al MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) MARY M. LEE, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Grischenko et al O’NEILL 103(a) GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

As we survey the claimed subject matter we are mindful of the full import of the expression “being capable of.” The verbal phrase “being capable of” indicates in English that the preceding noun is so modified as to have the ability to perform the gerund function; but there is no requirement to perform that function. Note the following holding from In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1006 (CCPA 1968), a decision of the predecessor to our reviewing court:
The main fault we observe in claim 17 is indefiniteness in the sense that things which may be done are not required to be done.1 For example, the ferrule or connector member is crimpable but not required, structurally, to be crimped; the ground wire “means,” which we take to be a piece of wire, is for disposition under the ferrule but is not required to be disposed anywhere; it becomes displaced when the ferrule is crimped but that may never be, so far as the language of claim 17 is concerned. These cannot be regarded as structural limitations and therefore not as positive limitations in a claim directed to structure. They cannot therefore be relied on to distinguish from the prior art.
As such, the requirement for the prior art to satisfy the claimed gerund function at issue is that the prior art have a structure that has the ability to perform the function; that structure, however, is not required to perform that function. In other words, what is required is evidence that the prior art has the ability to perform the function.

1 There is no issue of indefiniteness before us. We cite Collier solely for the guidance which it provides in interpreting the claims on appeal.

Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(k)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Snow et al PRATS 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Also, as noted in Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2009), “patents are not barred just because it was obvious ‘to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.’” (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . .
2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lark et al HANLON 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.

Ex Parte Parrish OWENS Obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Randall M. Heald, John F. Kennedy Space Center

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Anderson HOMERE 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) The Grafe Law Office, P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Watarai McCARTHY 103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Knowles HORNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) YOUNG & THOMPSON