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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, May 31, 2010

Monday May 31, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Murphy et al 10989721 COLAIANNI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYDE, P.C. EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

Ex Parte Tsai et al 10382032 PAK 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

Ex Parte Maydan et al 10867591 COLAIANNI 103(a) MOSER IS LAW GROUP APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

Ex Parte Burns et al 11108274 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (CHEVRON PHILLIPS) EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

As stated in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,


the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . .
The term "possession," however, has never been very enlightening. It implies that as
long as one can produce records documenting a written description of a claimed
invention, one can show possession. But the hallmark of written description is
disclosure. Thus, "possession as shown in the disclosure" is a more complete
formulation. Yet whatever the specific articulation, the test requires an
objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the
perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the
specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan
and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
598 F. 3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).

Ex Parte Bernard et al 10873887 SMITH 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Mane et al 10654137 JEFFERY 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

Ex Parte Robinson et al 10633804 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Nakaoka et al 09958885 MARTIN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Linzer 11122426 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOW, JEFFREY J

Ex Parte Turetzky et al 10154138 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA

Ex Parte Endoh et al 10239188 SAADAT 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AGUSTIN, PETER VINCENT

Ex Parte Shiono 10882316 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HSU, JONI

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Lee et al 11033845 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY

Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 10543051 KERINS 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E

Ex Parte Tsukagoshi 10796394 HAIRSTON 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LAVARIAS, ARNEL C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Joye et al 10867986 McCARTHY 112(1)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRATT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Hathaway 10636128 SIU 102(e) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER THERIAULT, STEVEN B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Lubbers et al 10043924 BARRETT 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Adams et al 11191006 HAHN 101/102(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

Ex Parte Joshi et al 11251674 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Mutchler 10761185 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY

REEXAMINATION

inter parties

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
SHIMANO, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ROLF DIETRICH Patent Owner and Appellant
95000008 6,428,113 LEBOVITZ 120 Priority/112(1)/103(a)/305 314(a) Enlarging the scope of the claims PURDUE LAW OFFICES THIRD PARTY REQUESTER David L. Tarnoof Global IP Counselors, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C

When a claim term merely states a purpose, an intended use, or a result, the term may not be considered a limitation of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

Friday, May 28, 2010

Friday May 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bockholt et al 11572536 GREEN 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR
Ex Parte Link et al 10804938 WALSH 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Currier et al 10957745 SMITH 103(a) GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

Ex Parte Zenger et al 10356598 OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

Ex Parte Ward 10488848 NAGUMO 103(a) COOPER & DUNHAM EXAMINER WYSZOMIERSKI, GEORGE P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Jain et al 10648600 BLANKENSHIP 102(b) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER RADTKE, MARK A

Ex Parte Fishman 09871990 SIU 103(a) SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G

Ex Parte Kundu et al 10414591 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) PatentGC LLC EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL

Ex Parte Christensen et al 10300830 DIXON 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A

Ex Parte Lin et al 10008872 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GARLICK HARRISON & MARKISON EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

Ex Parte Aggarwal et al 10041182 HUGHES 103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP EXAMINER CHUONG, TRUC T

Ex Parte Janko et al 10355390 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/102(b) TEKTRONIX, INC. EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Sakiyama et al 10702811 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER LIU, LIN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Ingvarsson et al 10458112 BOALICK 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER WARREN, MATTHEW E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 10356207 LORIN 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, NANCY T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ionescu 10389606 BAHR 101/112(2)/103(a) PANCU MIHAI IONESCU EXAMINER MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Berndl et al 10296451 ADAMS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sidhwa 10131455 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) STMicroelectronics, Inc. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Finke-Anlauff et al 10792175 DANG 102(b) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER VU, KIEU D

Ex Parte Kraenzel et al 10926735 DANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte Benny et al 09876090 DIXON 101/102(e)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ottofy 10705310 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) WEISS & MOY PC EXAMINER MCCLELLAN, JAMES S

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Thursday May 27, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Staton et al 10/912,661 ADAMS 112(2)/103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER SIMS, JASON M

Ex Parte Okuda et al 11/508,261 GRIMES 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER NIEBAUER, RONALD T

Ex Parte Sagawa et al 10/344,534 FREDMAN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER BELYAVSKYI, MICHAIL A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Moehlenbrock et al 10/661,848 ROBERTSON 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Baumann et al 10/902,590 DANG 102(b)/103(a) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Spio 10/412,361 HAIRSTON 103(a) GATES & COOPER, L.L.P. EXAMINER KHAN, MEHMOOD B

Ex Parte Lee et al 10/403,864 HAIRSTON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Barr et al 10/714,386 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BHAT, ADITYA S

Ex Parte Destain 11/322,801 OWENS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH

Ex Parte Hrubowchak et al 11/036,656 HAIRSTON 102(b) Osram Sylvania Inc. EXAMINER GUHARAY, KARABI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Thorn et al 10/169,418 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Shannon et al 10/877,231 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

In In re Venner, the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958).

Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10/481,227 NAGUMO 103(a) Flynn Thiel Boutell & Tanis EXAMINER DRODGE, JOSEPH W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Mustonen et al 10/717,600 HOFF 103(a)/101 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. EXAMINER PATEL, CHANDRAHAS B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte McEwan 10/275,742 MEDLEY Concurring LEE 102(b) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hillmann et al 10/275,633 BAHR 112(1)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER DUNN, DARRIN D

Ex Parte Nicastro 10/202,924 BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CARDINAL LAW GROUP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N

Ex Parte Reinhardt 10/887,783 STAICOVICI 103(a) ALDON R. REINHARDT EXAMINER LU, JIPING

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte ANASCAPE, LTD. 90/008,373 6,102,802 SONG 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON Third Party Requester: MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL

Ex parte CRYOVAC, INC. 90/006,430 6,287,613 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SEALED AIR CORPORATION EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

Ex parte JFE STEEL CORPORATION 90/008,756 6,740,174 DELMENDO 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Wednesday May 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Blume et al 10/790,658 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

Ex Parte Gall et al 11/337,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BLUMEL, BENJAMIN P

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Megerle et al 10/282,370 WARREN Concurring OWENS 103(a) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M

Ex Parte Turi et al 10/938,079 KIMLIN 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Papanyan et al 10/601,353 SIU 102(e) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd. , 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Howard et al 10/404,583 JEFFERY 103(a) AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

Ex Parte Curry et al 09/683,995 LUCAS 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL DRYJA EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Cutler et al 10/184,499 HOFF 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION C/O LYON & HARR, LLP EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

Ex Parte Pettinato 11/043,229 BARRETT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER HUYNH, CHUCK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Walker et al 10/232,647 LORIN 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ghercioiu et al 10/283,548 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert, & Goetzel PC EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN

“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . .
2111.01


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/577,938 HAHN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/061,354 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

Nominal recitations of structure in an otherwise ineligible method fail to make the method a statutory process. Ex parte Langmyr, 89 USPQ2d 1988, 1996 (BPAI 2008) (informative) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)).

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Kennedy 10/662,599 STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 90/007,189 6,166,667 LEE 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Tuesday May 25, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Christakos et al 11/177,790 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

Ex Parte Liu 10/870,766 GREEN 103(a) DR. GEORGE DACAI LIU EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

Ex Parte Marcel et al 10/315,445 PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUNNER, BRIDGET E

"The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention." Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).


Written Description Training Materials (http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written.pdf)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Iyengar 10/629,284 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

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

Ex Parte Moderegger et al 09/944,379 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/679,725 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Lochner et al 09/994,520 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, DUC Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Apps 11/099,423 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Clark et al 10/901,884 BAHR 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

Ex parte FELLOWES, INC. 90/010,137 5,789,051 EASTHOM 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK, & MORTIMER Third Party Requester: SHEWCHUK IP SERVICES EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be
gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is
technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or
process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the
desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is
universal - and even common-sensical - we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of
suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question
is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him
capable of combining the prior art references.

Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

inter partes

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.p.A.,Requester and Respondent v. CHEMI S.p.A., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,138 6,645,742 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI

In order for a showing of unexpected results to overcome the teachings of the prior art, the results presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48 (CCPA 1979).

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)

Monday, May 24, 2010

Monday May 24, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

REEXAMINATION

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes
the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .
Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a
claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.”
In
re Paulsen
, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here 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,
the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620;
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).
The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or
mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the
entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually
invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d
[1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the
entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define
and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

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

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303

Friday, May 21, 2010

Friday May 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/933,723 SCHEINER 112(1) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schurzky et al 10/492,610 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) UNIVATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

Ex Parte Sandell et al 10/953,263 KRATZ 103(a)/112(2) 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Univation Technologies, LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Burleson 10/640,756 HUGHES 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) McGinn Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

Ex Parte Holenstein et al 10/881,699 HUGHES 103(a) Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11/166,901 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, PC (Seagate Technology LLC) EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Ex Parte Fukushige et al 11/047,723 THOMAS 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Elving et al 10/209,036 LUCAS 102(e) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER CARDWELL, ERIC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/423,155 HORNER 103(a) Kagan Binder, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bascom et al 10/385,125 HORNER 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

Ex Parte Wittens 10/181,703 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Domb et al 10/083,413 SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) PABST PATENT GROUP LLP EXAMINER FLOOD, MICHELE C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte DeMarcken 10/272,426 LORIN 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Merriman et al 09/577,798 HORNER 102(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC EXAMINER LANEAU, RONALD

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

Examiner Affirmed

inter partes

IGT Appellant and Patent Owner v. Bally Technologies, Inc. Requestor 95/000,280 6,620,046 TURNER 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C

ex parte

Ex parte SATELLITE TRACKING OF PEOPLE LLC 90/008,047 6,405,213 TURNER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: GIBBONS P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K

Examiner Reversed

merged inter partes and ex parte

HARRY SHANNON Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ENPAT, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,005 and 90/006,330 6,328,260 LEBOVITZ 103(a) First Third Party Requester for 95/000,005 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor and Zafman Second Third Party Requester for 90/006,330 Clements Bernard PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Thursday May 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ware et al 11/142,651 GRIMES 112(2)/102(b)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER CHEN, SHIN LIN

“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kawabata et al 10/472,753 NAGUMO 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K

Ex Parte Lawrence et al 10/399,797 TIMM 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNENHULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Day et al 10/606,582 SIU 112(1)/103(a)/101 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kelly 10/820,484 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Wilbanks 10/445,584 SILVERBERG 103(a) MICHAEL J. COLITZ, JR. EXAMINER ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kocher et al 10/204,374 BAHR 103(a) Striker Striker & Stenby EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

Ex Parte Veith 10/693,555 HORNER 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Peart et al 10/759,280 ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Obviousness does not require absolute predictability; however, at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success can support a conclusion of non-obviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1053-54 (CCPA 1976).

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte McElroy 10/368,425 LANE 103(a)/102(e) Foley and Lardner, LLP EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

When a reference teaches away

it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination.In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200.
Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).


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

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Wednesday May 19, 2010

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte French et al 09/731,629 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Wehunt et al 11/332,651 MOHANTY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER OYEBISI, OJO O

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Trese et al 10/068,314 O’NEILL 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Belau et al 10/452,033 STAICOVICI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER MARCETICH, ADAM M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ghosh et al 10/841,991 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

REEXAMINATION

Examiner Reversed

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte AMERICAN CALCAR INC. 90/007,896 6,282,464 SONG 103(a) CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP Third Party Requester: CROWELL & MORING, LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Tuesday May 18, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bays et al 10/682,289 ADAMS 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER DAVIS, RUTH A

Ex Parte Donde et al 10/916,243 GREEN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

In order to make a prima facie case of obviousness based on the structural similarity between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the prior art, not only must the structural similarity exist, but the prior art must also provide reason or motivation to make the claimed compound. See In re Dillon, 919 F. 2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), In re Mayne, 104 F. 3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313 (CCPA 1979)

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09


Ex Parte Faecke et al 11/007,015 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

Ex Parte Yamashita 10/794,187 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fayet et al 10/529,533 DELMENDO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T

Ex Parte Wieners et al 10/257,002 NAGUMO 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) PROPAT, L.L.C. EXAMINER AHMED, SHEEBA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/288,727 BARRY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Nomura et al 09/969,845 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bates et al 09/848,573 CRAWFORD 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E

Ex Parte McClary 11/101,897 KERINS 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P

A principal purpose of the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,

is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.
In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2173.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Marlborugh et al 10/497,925 FREDMAN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHIN, CHRISTOPHER L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte McCarty 10/347,095 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER GOLD, AVI M

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Simpson 10/052,617 NAPPI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER THOMAS, ASHISH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Gluck 11/022,751 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL

Monday, May 17, 2010

Monday May 17, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Koh et al 09/802,857 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Guglielmotti et al 10/560,836 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

Ex Parte Shy 11/123,360 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP

See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; see also, Para-Ordnance Manufacturing v. SGS Importers International Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed Cir. 1995) (a warning against use of an element, rather than omission of mention of the element, is required to find teaching away).

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Forman et al 10/835,684 HOMERE 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

Ex Parte Nutter et al 10/145,374 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sharp 09/765,985 LORIN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MITTAL, KRISHAN K

Cf. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced".)

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. 90/008,132 6,624,096 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL F. SNYDER VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L

Collateral estoppel (also called issue preclusion) “precludes relitigation in a second suit of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This doctrine applies only if: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Id.

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01

Friday, May 14, 2010

Friday May 14, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ho et al 10/646,289 JEFFERY Dissenting DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

“[W]ith original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco, No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). When a claim uses the open-ended term, “comprising,” “this court has instructed that any such construction be consistent with the specification . . . and that the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at *4 (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Imura et al 10/697,041 COURTENAY 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KIM, ANDREW
Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention.
Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850))

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lamont et al 10/491,811 GRIMES 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

“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, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte MERITOR LIGHT VEHICLE SYSTEMS 6,273,501 90/008,657 SONG 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY, & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: Webasto AG EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Thursday May 13, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lantz et al 10/143,822 WALSH 101/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SAUNDERS, DAVID A


The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point--where specific benefit exists in currently available form-- there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.
Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966).


Courts have used the labels “practical utility” and “real world” utility interchangeably in determining whether an invention offers a “substantial” utility. Indeed, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “‘[p]ractical utility’ is a shorthand way of attributing ‘real-world’ value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.” Nelson [v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856 (CCPA 1980)](emphasis added). It thus is clear that an application must show 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). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Id. at 1378.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Nancekievill 10/939,992 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALROBAYE, IDRISS N

Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/347,481 HOMERE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Abolfathi et al 11/271,360 MOHANTY 102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

Ex Parte Gopalan 09/888,470 LORIN 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Boehmer et al 10/866,627 HANLON 112(1) RICHMOND, HITCHCOCK, FISH & DOLLAR EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte CONSTRUCTION MASTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6,721,623 90/008,298 EASTHOM 103(a) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M

“Structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 355 F.3d 1327, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182