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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, July 30, 2010

Friday July 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bennett et al 11/115,776 GREEN 103(a) NOVARTIS
Examiner Name:
HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA


Ex Parte Kincaid 10/184,501 PRATS Opinion dissenting FREDMAN 102(b) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Examiner Name:
DEJONG, ERIC S


Ex Parte Taylor 11/184,495 ADAMS 103(a) THE FIRM OF HUESCHEN AND SAGE
Examiner Name:
FORD, VANESSA L


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Veiner et al 10/794,702 COLAIANNI 102(b) BECKMAN COULTER, INC., MITCHELL E. ALTER
Examiner Name:
WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/206,728 BAHR 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
SANDERS, HOWARD J

Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/206,729 BAHR 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
SANDERS, HOWARD J

Ex Parte Lambright 10/612,254 McCARTHY 102(b) BUTZEL LONG
Examiner Name:
ADAMS, GREGORY W

Ex Parte Ligard 10/980,414 BARRETT 102(b) GABLE & GOTWALS
Examiner Name:
HAYES, BRET C

Ex Parte Parsons 11/275,886 BAHR 103(a) TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
Examiner Name:
KING, ANITA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gudmunsson et al 10/487,968 OWENS 112(1) GLAXOSMITHKLINE
Examiner Name:
DESAI, RITA J


Ex Parte Mutter et al 11/655,895 GRIMES 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SANZO, LLC
Examiner Name:
NATARAJAN, MEERA


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/827,494 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Examiner Name:
HUSON, MONICA ANNE


2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Swartz et al 10/760,099 HOMERE 102(e) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
Examiner Name:
ALAM, SHAHID AL


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dang et al 09/995,294 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name:
GORT, ELAINE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dinsmoor 10/835,424 BAHR 103(a) Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP
Examiner Name:
TOWA, RENE T


Moreover, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment, and thus could utilize the existing analog structure of Hines when incorporating a memory to store data as suggested in Yokoi. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

...

Regarding 4), it is important to note that in any combination, benefits gained must be balanced with benefits lost. As stated in Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006):

[O]bviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and there is no rule that a single reference that teaches away will mandate a finding of nonobviousness. Likewise, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. See [Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)] ("The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another."). Where the prior art contains "apparently conflicting" teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered "for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill.... consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Thus, while a benefit of Hines' current configuration is real-time data, this does not preclude anyone from modifying Hines to have non-real-time data. For example, some physiological characteristics may not change every 100-500 ms. See Hines, col. 4, ll. 58-61. The obvious tradeoff is data update frequency, but if the characteristic does not change quickly, or it is not as important to have real-time updates, then the benefit of saving power may outweigh a desire to have several updates a second. Appellant has not demonstrated that the tradeoffs involved with modifying Hines to store data and transmit less often to save battery power would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from considering the combination.

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chong et al
Ex Parte Donoho

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Breidenbach et al
Ex Parte Dang et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Baxter
Ex Parte Carlson et al
Ex Parte Elkind
Ex Parte Hackler et al
Ex Parte Hagerty et al
Ex Parte Hatalkar
Ex Parte Hofmann et al
Ex Parte Iino et al
Ex Parte Johnson
Ex Parte Looman et al
Ex Parte Love
Ex Parte Pai et al
Ex Parte Da Palma et al
Ex Parte Prochazka et al
Ex Parte Schmitz et al
Ex Parte Vishnupad et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Heiman
Ex Parte Loeb

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Thursday July 29, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Caussette et al 10/499,663 SPIEGEL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
ARIANI, KADE


The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).

Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). . . . . . 706.02(j), 706.02(m), 716.01(a), 804, 1504.03, 1504.06, 2106, 2141, 2144.08, 2258

Ex Parte Sinclair 11/031,534 SCHEINER 112(1)/103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK
Examiner Name:
CARTER, KENDRA D


“Title 35 does not require that a patent disclosure enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims to method of “restoring hair growth” encompassed achieving full head of hair but did not require it).

CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Chen et al 10/397,490 GARRIS 112(1)/112(2)/102(b) CORNING INCORPORATED
Examiner Name:
HOFFMANN, JOHN M

Ex Parte Iwasa et al 11/166,253 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM


Ex Parte Yoshida et al 10/873,620 HASTINGS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ollivier et al 11/042,797 O’NEILL 103(a) ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUFCLIFFE LLP
Examiner Name:
HELLER, TAMMIE K


Ex Parte Andersson et al 10/673,689 O’NEILL 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
PATEL, NIHIR B


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cragun et al 10/731,080 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
LUDWIG, MATTHEW J

Ex Parte Schwarzbauer et al 10/676,227 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) KOKKA & BACKUS, PC
Examiner Name:
RUTLEDGE, AMELIA L


“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Borelli et al 09/992,379 FISCHETTI 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Examiner Name:
BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3651
REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC Requester and Cross-Appellant v. HABASIT BELTING, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,072 6,523,680 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Quarles & Brady LLP
Examiner Name:
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chiba et al
Ex Parte MENDOZA
Ex Parte Pawluczyk et al
Ex Parte De Rigal et al
Ex Parte Yendler et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Bryant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brabec
Ex Parte Callahan et al
Ex Parte Chen et al
Ex Parte Choo et al
Ex Parte Colpas et al
Ex Parte Dai et al
Ex Parte Dettinger et al
Ex Parte Leas et al
Ex Parte Lortz et al
Ex Parte McDysan
Ex Parte Moore et al
Ex Parte Nitzan et al
Ex Parte Ranganathan
Ex Parte Yada et al
Ex Parte Zeller

REHEARING

Ex Parte Daneshvar
Ex Parte Harris et al
Ex Parte Wendling et al
Ex Parte Zeller

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Wednesday July 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Scott et al 11/440,746 GRIMES 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
Examiner Name:
HADDAD, MAHER M


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thompson-Colon et al 11/106,937 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC
Examiner Name:
HAIDER, SAIRA BANO


"Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach." In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretative guidance afforded by applicant’s written description.").

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

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181


Ex Parte Geisler et al 10/639,480 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
Examiner Name:
ALEXANDER, LYLE


Ex Parte Michl et al 10/571,699 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
REDDY, KARUNA P


Ex Parte Minamihaba et al 11/340,494 TIMM 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Examiner Name:
ANGADI, MAKI A


Ex Parte Rapier et al 10/706,645 TIMM 103(a) CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
Examiner Name:
WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A


2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chang 10/832,757 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) Haynes and Boone, LLP
Examiner Name:
LE, JESSICA N


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/518,907 SAADAT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner Name:
FIGUEROA, FELIX O

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Vendetti 11/250,699 BAHR 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
Examiner Name:
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T


3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Frey et al 11/021,954 O’NEILL 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP
Examiner Name:
HYLTON, ROBIN ANNETTE

Ex Parte Sanchez et al 10/706,481 KERINS 103(a) DARRELL F. MARQUETTE
Examiner Name:
HUNTER, ALVIN A

Ex Parte Weber et al 10/411,558 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC
Examiner Name:
HOUSTON, ELIZABETH


When an explicit limitation in a claim is not present in the written description, it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the description requires that limitation. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 47USPQ2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . .
2106, 2138.05,2163, 2163.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Haney 11/141,289 HORNER 112(1)/102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MARRELL HANEY
Examiner Name:
LOWE, MICHAEL S


In Mayhew, the rejected claim omitted reference to an element (use of a specially-located cooling bath) that the Specification made clear was an essential element of the invention. Mayhew, 527 F.2d at 1233. In Mayhew, an enablement rejection was upheld where an essential element was missing from the claim while, in contrast, in this case, the elements the Examiner states are essential are in claim 4.

Mayhew, In re, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2164.08(c), 2172.01, 2174
NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Endo et al
Ex Parte Thompson-Colon et al
Ex Parte van Zee

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Kennedy
Ex Parte Klein et al
Ex Parte PACETTI

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Beyerstedt et al
Ex Parte Boldy et al
Ex Parte Choi et al
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Fairhurst
Ex Parte Harville et al
Ex Parte Mital et al
Ex Parte Revie et al
Ex Parte Sankruthi
Ex Parte Uchikubo
Ex Parte Wang et al
Ex Parte van de Winkel et al

VACATED

Ex Parte Fellenstein et al

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Tuesday July 27, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Moinet et al 10/497,491 WALSH 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
Examiner Name:
PACKARD, BENJAMIN J


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Du Toit 10/204,010 GAUDETTE 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
Examiner Name:
HUSON, MONICA ANNE


2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Bera 10/307,838 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM ENDICOTT LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY ENGLAND
Examiner Name:
THAI, HANH B

Ex Parte Declercq et al 11/104,044 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP
Examiner Name:
DAVIDSON, CHAD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schlichting et al 11/158,946 HANLON 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (P&W)
Examiner Name:
MILLER, DANIEL H

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Tian et al 10/695,711 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
BELLO, AGUSTIN


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Carr et al 10/370,421 FISCHETTI 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C
Examiner Name:
MEYERS, MATTHEW S


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Deshayes et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Wilson

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte BOLLMANN et al
Ex Parte Brenner et al
Ex Parte Chen
Ex Parte Das et al
Ex Parte Emmot
Ex Parte Fairchild et al
Ex Parte Gu et al
Ex Parte Kucharewski et al
Ex Parte Nam et al
Ex Parte Roche et al
Ex Parte Simpson et al
Ex Parte Uchiyama
Ex Parte Wang et al

Monday, July 26, 2010

Monday July 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/685,737 WALSH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Aliyev et al 11/217,219 KRATZ 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

Ex Parte Livingston et al 10/928,834 KIMLIN 103(a) GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

Ex Parte Levine et al 10/631,937 HASTINGS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kimura 10/319,712 THOMAS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Miller 11/042,534 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) CRAIG W. RODDY HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Caccavale et al 10/441,866 LUCAS 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

“[The Supreme] Court’s precedents establish that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101. The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.’” See Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192, at *8 (June 28, 2010) (majority slip op. at Part–II–B1).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stated the machine-or-transformation test for process claims. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). The involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978).

The Supreme Court, in Bilski v. Kappos, 2010 WL 2555192, at *10 (2010) (majority slip op. at Part II–C–2), held that there are other tools for establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Those tools involve an inquiry into whether a process is merely an abstract idea. “In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas provide useful tools.” (Id.). The Court outlined one such precedent:

In [Gottschalk v.] Benson, 409 U.S. [63], 70 [(CCPA 1972)], the Court considered whether a patent application for an algorithm to convert binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary code was a “process” under §101. Id. at 64–67. The Court first explained that “‘[a] principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.’” Id. at 67 (quoting Le Roy, [55 U.S.156, 175 (1852)]). The Court then held the application at issue was not a “process,” but an unpatentable abstract idea. “It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting . . . numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case.” 409 U. S. [63], at 71. A contrary holding “would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”

Id. at 72. (Id. at *11 (Part III)).

...

We thus find that Appellants’ claim 8 is merely an abstract idea in accordance with Benson, a precedential case relied upon in Bilski v. Kappos as a “useful … investigative tool” for determining subject-matter eligibility.

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

Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rahavan et al 10/771,545 NAPPI 101/102(e)/103(a) DON W. BULSON, ESQ. RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR EXAMINER ROSARIO, DENNIS

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Preaudat et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bates et al
Ex Parte Boire et al
Ex Parte Fenton et al
Ex Parte Lucidarme et al
Ex Parte Mitchell
Ex Parte Moore et al
Ex Parte Pang et al

Friday, July 23, 2010

Friday July 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Johnson et al 09/950,985 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness type double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC.
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO


Optimization of a parameter not recognized as being result-effective is not prima facie obvious. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05

Ex Parte Lipps et al 10/242,175 WALSH 112(1) JOHN R. CASPERSON
Examiner Name:
AUDET, MAURY A


[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).

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

Ex Parte Siber 10/441,059 WALSH 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name:
STOICA, ELLY GERALD


“[K]nowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references to reach the particular claimed method.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (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 Goldberg et al 11/783,882 TIMM 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
NUTTER, NATHAN M


While the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), the evidence need not be commensurate in scope with the prior art, they need only be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. The evidence must show that the unexpected results extend throughout the claimed subject matter but do not extend into the prior art teachings that fall outside of the claimed subject matter, i.e., that the claimed ranges are critical for obtaining the unexpected result. See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims."); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) ("Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for 'it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.") (quoting In re Tiffen, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)); and In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 958-59 (CCPA 1960) (To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, and applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range.).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .
2131.01, 2145

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

Greenfield, In re, 40 F.2d 775, 5 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1214.01, 2682

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03(a)

Hill, In re, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)


Ex Parte Golner et al 10/697,950 GARRIS 103(a) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Examiner Name:
BHAT, NINA NMN


Ex Parte Henry et al 10/495,118 GAUDETTE 103(a) DENNISON, SCHULTZ & MACDONALD
Examiner Name:
YANG, JIE


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Silver et al 10/784,383 NAPPI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AT&T
Examiner Name:
BLOUNT, ERIC


3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Carbone 11/054,770 LEE 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) W. THOMAS TIMMONS
Examiner Name:
HEINRICH, SAMUEL M


Ex Parte Stoll et al 11/162,545 LEE 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
Examiner Name:
ROSS, DANA


Ex Parte Strand et al 10/300,355 TIMM 112(1 )/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
Examiner Name:
HYLTON, ROBIN ANNETTE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) art unit 3746
Ex parte TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION Patent Owner & Appellant 90/008,926 6,793,469 LEBOVITZ 102(a/e)/102(b)/103(a)/101 Counsel for the Patent Owner: QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC Counsel for the Third Party Requester: DAVID M. RUDDY, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
LEWIS, AARON J


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Baek et al
Ex Parte Bodin et al
Ex Parte Joos et al
Ex Parte Yuzawa

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Howell et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al
Ex Parte Allen et al
Ex Parte Bodin et al
Ex Parte Eldridge et al
Ex Parte Harris
Ex Parte Pardridge
Ex Parte ROBINSON et al
Ex Parte Spadini et al
Ex Parte Sreenivasan et al
Ex Parte Strand et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Merchant

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Thursday July 22, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Netzer et al 10/337,261 GREEN 103(a) HOXIE & ASSOCIATES LLC
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO


2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Friend et al 10/400,970 KRIVAK 103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
BLAIR, DOUGLAS B


3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Diamantopoulos 10/506,744 KERINS 102(a)/103(a) SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
Examiner Name:
HAND, MELANIE JO


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cases et al 10/446,441 GREEN 112(1)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G


“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

For antibody claims, which are defined by their function rather than the structure of the antibody per se, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our reviewing court, has adopted the USPTO Written Description Guidelines:

[A]s persuasive authority for the proposition that a claim directed to “any antibody which is capable of binding to antigen X” would have sufficient support in a written description that disclosed “fully characterized antigens.” Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines, at 60, available at http://www.uspto.gov.web.menu.written.pdf (last visited Jan. 16, 2003) (emphasis added).

Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163


Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 69 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/008,352 and 90/010,035 6,712,387 SONG 112(1) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requestor: RICHARD K.DEMILLE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
Examiner Name:
KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PORT-A-COOL, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,567 6,223,548 SONG 103(a) JONES & SMITH, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: John M. Bradshaw, Esq. WOODARD, EMHARDT, NAUGHTON, MORIARTY & MCNETT
Examiner Name:
JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Green et al

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Akins et al
Ex Parte Hansen et al
Ex Parte Kubota et al
Ex Parte Martinez Ponce
Ex Parte Scherer et al

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Wednesday July 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Delaney 11/165,564 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
SOROUSH, ALI


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Imori et al 10/482,092 KIMLIN non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS
Examiner Name:
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A


2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barsness et al 11/082,925 COURTENAY 112(2)/103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Examiner Name:
RADTKE, MARK A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoneya et al 10/070,908 BAUMEISTER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, HOAN C


3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hirose 10/860,762 PATE III 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
Examiner Name:
KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gardner et al 10/727,779 GRIMES 112(1)/102(e)/102(a)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC
Examiner Name:
BERTAGNA, ANGELA MARIE


Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lenk 10/887,438 COURTENAY 102(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE ASSOCIATES PC
Examiner Name:
PARK, ILWOO


“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, "each claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim discloses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features." Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenics Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

REEXAMINATION

ex parte


EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Charak, LLC,Appellant 90/009,162 6,537,976 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WAYNE S. BREYER DEMONT & BREYER, LLC
Examiner Name:
HUANG, EVELYN MEI


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Alkazemi
Ex Parte Bensussan et al
Ex Parte Brundage et al
Ex Parte Morooka et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Archie
Ex Parte Jalil et al
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Aquino et al
Ex Parte Babic et al
Ex Parte Clark et al
Ex Parte Crawford et al
Ex Parte FISHER et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Miller et al
RUHOFF.pdf
Ex Parte Seghatol et al
Ex Parte Takayama et al
Ex Parte Vishik et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Ayala et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Tuesday July 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Reguri et al 11/219,976 LEBOVITZ 102(b) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. EXAMINER MABRY, JOHN

There is no per se prohibition of patenting a “new form” of a compound. To the contrary, there are numerous cases in which a new form of a known compound was determined to be patentable. See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Jensen et al 10/838,533 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sayal et al 09/943,223 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DENG, ANNA CHEN

Ex Parte Phenix 10/667,816 DANG 101/103(a) MICHAEL B. JOHANNESEN, ESQ. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, P.C. EXAMINER RADTKE, MARK A

Though the Examiner finds that “[t]he claims are rejected as falling under the judicial exception of an abstract idea … not statutory within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101” (Ans. 3), “an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article” into a different state or thing. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972).

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

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Saunders et al 10/447,514 NAPPI 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JONES EXAMINER GE, YUZHEN

Ex Parte Ceshkovsky 10/190,382 HAHN 101/112(1) PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L

For the forgoing reasons we find a disclosed operative embodiment. We, therefore, will not sustain the rejection under § 101 of claims 1-60 because our reviewing court has stated “[t]o violate [35 U.S.C.] § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result.” Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis added).

Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . 2107.01

Ex Parte Frakes et al 10/865,084 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) THOMAS, KEYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, BRIAN Q

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Chin et al 11/287,966 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peters 10/758,853 CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

Ex Parte Wylie 09/971,908 CRAWFORD 103(a) Philmore H. Colburn II Cantor Colburn LLP EXAMINER RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage; an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Weiland et al 10/620,732 SIU 102(b) NAVTEQ NORTH AMERICA, LLC EXAMINER TO, TUAN C

REEXAMINATION

inter partes

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

THE C.W. ZUMBIEL COMPANY, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC.1 Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,077 6,715,639 SONG 103(a) James F. Vaughan Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice cc Third Party Requester: KEITH R. HAUPT, ESQ. Wood Herron & Evans LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Baxter et al
Ex Parte Kamon et al
Ex Parte Kunkee et al
Ex Parte Taylor
Ex Parte Zelazo et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Rudelic
Ex Parte Xu et al

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Distefano
Ex Parte Etzold
Ex Parte Jourdan et al
Ex Parte Keller et al
Ex Parte Kimbrell et al
Ex Parte Kloke et al
Ex Parte Pabla et al
Ex Parte Wagstaff
Ex Parte Yaeger

REHEARING

Ex Parte Van Der Vleuten et al

Monday, July 19, 2010

Monday July 19, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fixman et al 11/575,164 SPIEGEL 102(b)/112(2) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C.
Examiner Name:
CARLSON, KAREN C

Ex Parte Penner et al 10/938,888 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C.
Examiner Name:
SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

Ex Parte Shi et al 10/132,542 WALSH 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A.
Examiner Name:
FUBARA, BLESSING M

Ex Parte Sorge et al 10/734,563 MILLS 112(1) AGILENT TECHOLOGIES INC
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blau 11/187,098 KERINS 112(1)/103(a) PHILIP KOENIG
Examiner Name:
ARK, DARREN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Grafton 10/635,444 FREDMAN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
Examiner Name:
OLSON, ERIC


NEW

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Armbruster et al
Ex Parte Byrum et al
Ex Parte Gass et al
Ex Parte Liu et al
Ex Parte Sarkar

Friday, July 16, 2010

Friday July 16, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wenger et al 10/490,565 PRATS 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Examiner Name:
FORD, ALLISON M


1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lin et al 10/981,926 KRATZ 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC-IBM
Examiner Name:
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Martin 10/754,070 C. THOMAS 112(1)/102(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
PHAM, HUNG Q


REEXAMINATION

ex parte

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte TEST.COM 90/007,997 6,513,042 TURNER 103(a) Cynthia S. Murphy RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR Jason Schultz, Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation
Examiner Name:
CHOI, WOO H

An Applicant’s declaration must clearly explain the evidence and exhibits, pointing out exactly what facts are established and relied on by applicant to show conception and reduction of the invention to a practical form:


The affidavit or declaration and exhibits must clearly explain which facts or
data applicant is relying on to show completion of his or her invention prior to
the particular date. Vague and general statements in broad terms about what the
exhibits describe along with a general assertion that the exhibits describe a
reduction to practice “amounts essentially to mere pleading, unsupported by
proof or a showing of facts” and, thus, does not satisfy the requirements of 37
CFR 1.131(b).

MPEP § 715.07 (I) (quoting In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974)). See also In re Harry, 333 F.2d 920, 922 (CCPA 1964) (Where the affidavit “asserts that facts exist but does not tell what they are or when they occurred.”). A declaration exhibit need not support all claimed limitations; however, any missing limitation must supported by the declaration itself. MPEP § 715.07 (I) (citing Ex parte Ovshinsky, 10 USPQ2d 1075, 1077 (BPAI 1989)).

“[F]or the purpose of antedating [a] reference under Rule 131, it is sufficient that appellant has shown a reduction to practice of his basic invention, which showing will also suffice as to claims differing therefrom only in details which are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 1178 (CCPA 1974). The court subsequently clarified that Spiller “nowhere weakens the requirement, under Rule 131, of a factual showing of completion of the invention before the critical date.” In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d at 719.

Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07

Harry, In re, 333 F.2d 920, 142 USPQ 164 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .715.07, 2138.06

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

Spiller, In re, 500 F.2d 1170, 182 USPQ 614 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .715.02, 715.03

While the Examiner may be correct regarding the requirements for 37 CFR § 1.131 as it applies to regular examination, this is not the case once a patent application has issued and then subsequently under reexamination, as is the case here. Specifically, rule 37 CFR § 1.131(a) states:

(a) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim, the owner of the patent under reexamination, or the party qualified under §§ 1.42, 1.43, or 1.47 may submit an appropriate oath or declaration. . . .

37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (2009). (emphasis added).


NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Crnkovich
Ex Parte Wenger et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Alexander et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Agazzi
Ex Parte Isenstein et al
Ex Parte Meythaler
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Sezan et al