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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Wednesday June 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Link et al 10/850,075 GREEN 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER SACKEY, EBENEZER O

Ex Parte Lyng et al 10/744,607 GREEN 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

Ex Parte Choo et al 10/198,677 MILLS 103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Ex Parte Drasner et al 10/174,055 PRATS Concurring McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

Applying KSR, the Federal Circuit has stated that “in cases involving new chemical compounds, it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound.” Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Ex Parte Yuan et al 11/110,967 WALSH 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Wang et al 10/385,834 COLAIANNI 102(b) H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

Ex Parte Arzadon et al 10/158,251 HANLON 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER KASTLER, SCOTT R

Ex Parte Bartko 11/100,655 WALSH non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/102(a/e)/103(a) WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cameron et al 10/094,373 JEFFERY 103(a) ACCENTURE INDY 33391 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/044,555 HAIRSTON 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER ORTIZ, BELIX M

Ex Parte Bardsley et al 09/917,368 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) Duke Yee Yee & Associates, P. C. EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Ex Parte Norton et al 10/686,741 BAUMEISTER 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

Ex Parte Proudler 09/920,554 MARTIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAVIS, ZACHARY A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gilmour et al 11/501,066 MARTIN 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP EXAMINER BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL

Ex Parte Walker et al 10/501,771 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Zlokovic et al 10/451,917 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/102(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Assuming there is sufficient reason to think undue experimentation would be needed to use an invention, a rejection for failure to teach how to use would be proper. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971). “The PTO cannot make this kind of rejection, however, unless it has reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained in the written description.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . 2111, 2164.04

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Wolrich et al 10/039,289 COURTENAY 103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Bellotti et al 09/683,532 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. EXAMINER CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Campagnolo 10/980,693 HORNER 112(1)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, MATTHEW A

Ex Parte Littrell 10/739,599 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b) AT&T Legal Department EXAMINER LEVINE, ADAM L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte English et al 10/719,613 O’NEILL 103(a) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PepperBall Technologies, Inc. 90/008,731 7,194,960 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PEPPERBALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES A. PINTO, ESQ. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C. EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R

Long-Felt Need

Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence showing existence of a persistent problem recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art for which a solution was not known. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967). In addition, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Co. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Hence, the appellant must present affidavits or other factual evidence of “a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to [a] long-standing problem” and evidence “that experts did not foresee” the solution claimed. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Finally, the invention must satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1971).

Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(d), 716.04

Piasecki, In re, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 716.01(d), 2107.02, 2142, 2145


Cavanagh, In re, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

Commercial Success

If evidence of commercial success is relied upon, the Appellant must offer proof “that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention – as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The evidence must also demonstrate commercial success in the relevant market. See Id. In addition, there must be a nexus between the commercial success and merits of the claimed invention. Cable Electric Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 150

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PepperBall Technologies, Inc. 90/008,728 6,393,992 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PEPPERBALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES A. PINTO, ESQ. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C. EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Tuesday June 29, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Merovitz 10/458,772 KIMLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) CHARLES N.J. RUGGIERO, ESQ.OHLANDT, GREELEY,RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Arpirez 10/375,083 STEPHENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN

Ex Parte Forrer et al 11/016,216 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORP (YA)C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte van Lith et al 10/619,398 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) RYAN A. SCHNEIDER TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP EXAMINER CHARLES, MARCUS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Denney et al 10/690,833 BAHR 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Nicholas 10/476,508WALSH 102(e)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

A declaration may supply a missing feature from an evidentiary exhibit. See Ex Parte Ovshinsky, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d, 1075, 1076 (Bd. Pat. App. Interf. Feb. 3, 1989).

Ovshinsky, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1075 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Vogel et al 09/833,452 LANE 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(D) E I Du Pont De Nemours and Company EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

But, “the mere fact that an inventor may have invented the combination, A, B, and C, for
example, before a patentee does not in itself prove that he has also invented the combination A, B, C, and D at the same time . . . .” In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 832 (CCPA 1965).

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Van Rijnsoever et al 10/482,145 BARRY 101/112(1)/112(2)/102(b) Philips Electronics North America Corporation EXAMINER DINH, MINH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ohmer 10/904,910 BAHR 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER ANDREWS, DAVID L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Aderhold et al 10/788,979 O’NEILL 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

Ex Parte Bivens 10/642,130 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER MAI, TRI M

Ex Parte Carlson et al 11/590,638 KERINS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY P.A. EXAMINER LEWIS, KIM M

Ex Parte Denney et al 11/401,114 BAHR 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

Ex Parte Sexton et al 10/768,424 BAHR 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

Monday, June 28, 2010

Monday June 28, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Blenke et al 10/743,222 GARRIS 102(b) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

It is an established legal principle that


unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only
all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or
combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove
prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35
U.S.C. § 102.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and the claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation." Id. "Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Id. "[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference." Id., quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Zohar et al 10/620,080 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM2) EXAMINER VIDWAN, JASJIT S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Watson 09/893,693 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mun 10/639,288 BAUMEISTER 103(a) LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Nair et al 11/264,452 GRIMES 101/112(1)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Brackett et al 10/749,524 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Nhan et al 10/699,193 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

Friday, June 25, 2010

Friday June 25, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Riley 10/915,174 BARRETT 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER YU, HENRY W

"Because it is for the invention as claimed that enablement must exist, and because the impossible cannot be enabled, a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C." Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Nakamura et al 10/357,038 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, T.J. WATSON RESEARCH CENTER EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

"[T]he best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine [the] references." In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to be solved. Id.

Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dorr 10/864,170 O’NEILL 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER STODOLA, DANIEL P

Ex Parte Dyko et al 11/076,314 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) RAY L. WEBER RENNER, KENNER, GRIEVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Thursday June 24, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lindner et al 10/079,479 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

Ex Parte Sundberg et al 11/088,146 OWENS 102(a/e)/103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/023,676 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Ex Parte Cluff et al 11/497,698 BLANKENSHIP obviousness type double patenting/112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

Ex Parte Hintikka et al 10/609,781 SIU 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Svendsen et al 10/346,298 KRIVAK 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bell et al 10/894,992 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

Ex Parte Tremaglio 11/105,808 SILVERBERG 103(a) GANZ LAW, P.C. EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

Ex Parte Zemlok et al 11/122,311 KERINS 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

REEXAMINATION

inter partes

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
OMNI-THERM, INC. Requester, Respondent v. DUPACO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,046 6,490,737 SONG 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Edward W. Callan, Third Party Requester: Grace J. Fishel EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R

In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, '[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.'" Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re Moore, 58 C.C.P.A. 1042, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.").

Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 61 USPQ2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2173.05

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(e)

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

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Wednesday June 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Namburi et al 11/849,505 GRIMES 103(a) ROBERTS & ROBERTS, LLP EXAMINER POLANSKY, GREGG

Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/853,611PRATS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Moncla et al 10/925,693 GAUDETTE non-statutory obviousness-type double-patenting THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Amorin et al 10/953,728 JEFFERY 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/793,526 HUGHES 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Martin & Associates, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, CINDY

Ex Parte Leete et al 10/404,732 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BONZO, BRYCE P

Ex Parte Scholz 10/767,907 HUGHES 103(a) Fish & Richardson, P.C. EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Stobie 10/969,377 HORNER 103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Homer 10/814,538 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOLTON, STEVEN E

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Tuesday June 22, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte McKenney 11/129,803 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES (San Jose) EXAMINER VO, CECILE H

Ex Parte Denissen et al 11/133,297 BARRY 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER VU, KIEU D

Ex Parte Martin 10/350,838 THOMAS 103(a) Susan M. Donahue Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Yuan 10/642,256 NAPPI 103(a) HEMINGWAY & HANSEN, LLP EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Matthaei et al 10/182,208 KERINS 103(a) GERO G. McCLELLAN MOSER PATTERSON & SHERIDAN EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Pflager et al 10/270,087 STAICOVICI 103(a) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER SHAKERI, HADI

Ex Parte Buchner 10/840,064 STAICOVICI 103(a) FRANK J. CATALANO, P.C. EXAMINER GETZOW, SCOTT M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Requena 10/023,456 NAPPI 103(a) WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS, & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte McQueer 10/987,889 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT
& LITTON, LLP EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L

Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L’Oreal S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 44 USPQ2d 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.05, 2163

Monday, June 21, 2010

Monday June 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Calvani 10/470,999 SCHEINER 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

Ex Parte Lange et al 10/942,021 SPIEGEL 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE

Ex Parte Van Oorschot et al 10/072,570 McCOLLUM 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dawes 10/489,457 NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T

Ex Parte Wheat et al 10/407,876 OWENS 103(a) CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. EXAMINER PARSONS, THOMAS H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Agrawal et al 10/971,321 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM Attn: Reba Pieczynski EXAMINER CHEEMA, AZAM M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Novak THOMAS 10/601,406 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hosur et al 10/755,603 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER REGO, DOMINIC E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cychosz et al 09/952,995 LORIN 103(a) BECK & TYSVER, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Stevens et al 10/310,720 PATE III 103(a) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte McIntire et al 10/663,497 MILLS 112(1) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER BAUSCH, SARAE L

"Enablement is determined as of the effective filing date of the patent, In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 604 (CCPA 1977)." Plant Genetic Systems, N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Calgene Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124, 2164.05(a)

Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 65 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . 2164.08

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.,188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129(Fed. Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164.06(b)

Ex Parte Ameye et al 10/061,622 PRATS 103(a) CYNTHIA L. FOULKE NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Spears10/970,121 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Kraguljac & Kalnay, LLC – Oracle EXAMINER BROPHY, MATTHEW J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dingman 10/427,362 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

Ex Parte Nyhan et al 09/900,674 FISCHETTI 103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D

Appellants’ argument to these claims “fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims . . .,” and are not commensurate with the broader scope of the claims. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).

Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.05

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gardenier et al 10/621,749 BARRETT 103(a) JOHN PIETRANGELO HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHILLIPS, CHARLES E

Friday, June 18, 2010

Friday June 18, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gilkerson 10/779,808 BARRY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Menard 11/021,470 HORNER 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER BEAUCHAINE, MARK J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Nykoluk et al 10/688,447 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) PATRICK W. RASCHE ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MAI, TRI M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Snead 10/178,123 LUCAS 102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Stockstill 10/664,039 McCARTHY 103(a) VEDDER PRICE, PC EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

“Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Our reviewing court has explained that “the use of common sense does not require a ‘specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,’ only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations.” Id. at 1329 (quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (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

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART and REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte MICHAEL C. RYAN 90/007,920 5,913,180 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DAVIS, BROWN, KOEHN, SHORS & ROBERTS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Thursday June 17, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kintzley et al 11/437,018 NAGUMO 103(a) HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

Ex Parte Ootsuka et al 10/489,111 OWENS Opinion dissenting-in-part NAGUMO 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Michelsen 10/424,562 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Koele et al 11/365,543 PATE III 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

Ex Parte Li et al 10/812,113 BARRETT 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

Ex Parte Viswanathan 11/220,383 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER LLOYD, EMILY M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Pratt 10/433,198 NAGUMO 103(a) THOMPSON E. FEHR EXAMINER WILSON, MICHAEL H

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Wednesday June 16, 2010

REVERSED

Ex Parte Aquila et al EXAMINER ALTSCHUL, AMBER L
Ex Parte Coulthard et al EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
Ex Parte Hwang et al EXAMINER HILL, MYRON G
Ex Parte Krywanczyk et al EXAMINER RAO, SHRINIVAS H
Ex Parte Nishitani et al EXAMINER HUNTER, ALVIN A
Ex Parte Racenet et al EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W
Ex Parte Reiser EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
Ex Parte Rollins et al EXAMINER AFREMOVA, VERA
Ex Parte SERKIN et al EXAMINER MILEF, ELDA G
Ex Parte Takizawa EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Blischak et al EXAMINER PATEL, NATASHA
Ex Parte Carruth EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B
Ex Parte Fitzsimmons EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S
Ex Parte Gargi EXAMINER TAN, ALVIN H
Ex Parte Keller et al EXAMINER WANG, VICTOR W
Ex Parte Kincaid EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
Ex Parte Roher EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU
Ex Parte Schabert et al EXAMINER ELKINS, GARY E
Ex Parte Serros et al EXAMINER FONSECA, JESSIE T

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI and NARUHITO HIGO EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Tuesday June 15, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Beyerinck et al 10/351,568 ADAMS 103(a) PFIZER INC. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

Ex Parte Hassan et al 10/512,318 GRIMES 103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER SILVERMAN, ERIC E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Darolia et al 10/707,469 NAGUMO 103(a) HARTMAN AND HARTMAN, P.C. EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Berry et al 10/793,461 COURTENAY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D

Ex Parte Yaeger 10/402,705 LUCAS 103(a) KUNZLER NEEDHAM MASSEY & THORPE EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

Ex Parte Oliver et al 11/365,065 DIXON 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) OSHA LIANG L.L.P. EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

The Examiner's focus during the examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression is available. See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (BPAI 1992). Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958 (CCPA 1976).

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .
608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)


Venezia, In re, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(g)

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sirohey et al 10/711,189 HAHN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, L.L.P. EXAMINER BROOME, SAID A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Slepian 10/072,766 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER MARVICH, MARIA

REEXAMINATION

ex parte

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/007,187 5,726,772 TORCZON 102(b) For Patent Owner: MICHAEL GREENBAUM, ESQ. BLANK ROME LLP For Third-Party Requester: JOHN D. VANDENBERG KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J

Monday, June 14, 2010

Monday June 14, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Beer et al 10/051,459 KRATZ 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE

Ex Parte Engesser 10/929,568 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

Ex Parte Freese et al 10/661,917 OWENS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte West et al 10/535,493 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/092,368 BOALICK 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, LLP EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fitzsimmons 11/519,739 THOMAS 103(a) Todd E. Fitzsimmons EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

We note that claim terms are not interpreted in a vacuum, devoid of the context of the claim as a whole. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”); ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered....”).

ACTV, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 68 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

Ex Parte Mau 10/619,748 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A

Friday, June 11, 2010

Friday June 11, 2010

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/349,727 MOHANTY 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Tarquini et al 10/003,820 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Thursday June 10, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Peck et al 10/281,289 SPIEGEL 102(a)/102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER FORMAN, BETTY J

An obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps: (1) construction of the claims of the patent and the claim in the application to identify any differences, and (2) determination of whether the differences in subject matter between the claims render the claims patentably distinct. Accord Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, "a double patenting of the obviousness type rejection is analogous to [a failure to meet] the non-obviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103, except that the patent principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art." In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quotation marks omitted).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Krakers et al 11/013,205 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER JOYNER, KEVIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Plumer et al 10/983,874 LORIN 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUSAN M. DONAHUE ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./FY EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sazy 10/655,571 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Eis et al 10/770,616 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Kerr et al 09/995,697 JEFFERY 102(e) BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Anne Kinsman EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

Ex Parte Thomas 10/192,609 EASTHOM 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J

Ex Parte Dettinger et al 09/871,929 JEFFERY 101/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Wednesday June 9, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Morishita et al 10/366,718 GREEN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER GIBBS, TERRA C

In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the matter are to be reweighed").

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

Ex Parte Schrader 10/311,760 GREEN 103(a) WHITE & CASE LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gueret 10/779,725 SILVERBERG Concurring Opinion BAHR 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Vange et al 10/380,471 GREEN 103(a) JACOBSON HOLMAN PLLC EXAMINER LULIS, MICHAEL P

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Standing 10/970,165 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO