SEARCH

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

Friday, September 30, 2011

herr, KCJ, pitney bowes

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Jimenez Mayorga et al 10/555,286 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1631 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11/172,492 PRATS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP(Medtr Minimed) EXAMINER RIGGS II, LARRY D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte KARAMI et al 11/781,543 McCOLLUM 103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1772 Ex Parte Siskin et al 11/256,728 WARREN 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M

In the Reply Brief, Appellants submit that the “new and more extensive record on the present application” makes “irrelevant” the Examiner’s determination that the claimed processes in the prior and present Appeals are “essentially equivalent.” Reply Br. 1, citing and quoting In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 611 (CCPA 1967) (the issue in any appeal is whether appellant is entitled to allowance of the claims “in the application and record” on appeal).

Herr, In re, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(w)

1778 Ex Parte Dart et al 11/545,393 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Trivedi 10/097,934 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Fuccello et al 11/001,436 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Blodgett et al 11/872,628 BARRETT 112(1) INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Frauhammer et al 11/157,019 BAHR 103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Kuebelbeck 10/592,017 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1766 Ex Parte Rappoport et al 11/478,455 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Sabiers et al 10/387,614 TURNER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kilroy et al 11/298,438 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HOANG, ANN THI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Ravikumar et al 11/462,049 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FEENEY, BRETT A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Perez 11/533,075 LEBOVITZ 103(a) 112(1) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING


REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1773 Ex Parte 7090906 et al ANEMOSTAT PRODUCTS and TECHNICAL GLASS PRODUCTS Requesters and Respondents v. Patent of O’KEEFFE’S, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,010, 95/001,020 & 90/010,016 10/238,115 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JONES DAY FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NICHOLAS J. TUCCILLO McCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ROBERT F. SCOTTI KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER CHEN, VIVIAN

The term “a” is an indefinite article which is customarily interpreted to mean “at least one,” permitting the inclusion of additional elements which are not recited in the claim. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1111 Ex Parte 6219674 et al Ex parte CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,638 08/184,900 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. FOR THE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES B. MONROE FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BANANKHAH, MAJID A original EXAMINER SKAPARS, ANTHONY

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 7291182 et al Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant 90/009,310 09/121,300 DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ohmi et al 10/363,640 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1732 Ex Parte Gulevich et al 10/594,780 KIMLIN 103(a) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER
QIAN, YUN

1747 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/860,742 HANLON 103(a) John D. DeLong The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1762 Ex Parte Kirchmeyer et al 10/627,162 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

1764 Ex Parte Meng et al 11/841,466 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

1771 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/873,714 HANLON 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER
TOOMER, CEPHIA D

1771 Ex Parte Chambard et al 10/947,093 FRANKLIN 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER OLADAPO, TAIWO

1778 Ex Parte Haase 10/413,849 WARREN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) RICHARD A. HAASE (INVENTOR) EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/257,802 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAUL L

2177 Ex Parte Gibson 10/366,091 KRIVAK 103(a) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2181 Ex Parte Claseman 10/846,724 POTHIER 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER DEWS, BROOKE J

2185 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11/357,473 KRIVAK 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN

2186 Ex Parte Nobunaga et al 11/042,256 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Negishi et al 09/931,577 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, P.L.L.C EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lurkens et al 10/509,410 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

2811 Ex Parte Kavalieros et al 11/581,183 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, MEIYA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kalley et al 10/093,460 DANG 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sawyer 11/395,994 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

“If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Purcell et al 10/648,590 McCARTHY 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ROANE, AARON F

Thursday, September 29, 2011

orthopedic, etter, rembrandt, invitrogen, ICON

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Tamura 10/540,816 GRIMES 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC EXAMINER MATTISON, LORI K

1644 Ex Parte Plouet et al 10/530,893 SCHEINER 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M

1657 Ex Parte Burkinshaw et al 11/181,677 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) O'KEEFE, EGAN, PETERMAN & ENDERS LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

“There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference. Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted); see also, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859-60 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc) (“the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole”) (citations omitted).

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . 716.04
Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/229,840 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Hayashi et al 10/576,421 KRATZ 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, CLAIRE LOUISE

1742 Ex Parte Meerman et al 10/500,713 KRATZ 112(1)/132 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

1761 Ex Parte Fernholz et al 11/257,874 HANLON 103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1782 Ex Parte Morris 11/098,228 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

1784 Ex Parte Laird et al 11/898,557 WARREN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Cheshire et al 10/877,414 HUGHES 102(b) PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Sweeney et al 11/385,903 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER LE, KAREN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Bodlaender 10/502,153 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Philips Electornics North America Corporation EXAMINER UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Mansfield Jr. 10/501,141 CRAWFORD 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER STAMBER, ERIC W

3674 Ex Parte Burdick et al 11/539,216 McCARTHY 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

3689 Ex Parte Heimke et al 10/984,634 CRAWFORD 112(1)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 10/908,165 McCARTHY 102(b) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER ROST, ANDREW J

3753 Ex Parte Palin et al 11/536,696 PATE III 103(a) Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P.C./Sikorsky EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

3761 Ex Parte Bobroff et al 10/798,060 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choo et al 11/449,745 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Levy 10/602,549 POTHIER 102(e) 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

However, reciting both an apparatus and the method of using the apparatus renders a claim indefinite under § 112, second paragraph. See Rembrandt Data Tech., L.P. v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2171 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/484,646 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kasriel et al 10/128,598 RUGGIERO 102(e) 102(e) NORTH OAKS PATENT AGENCY EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Alkemper et al 11/096,406 CRAWFORD 101/102(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER TROTTER, SCOTT S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,232 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2662 Ex Parte 6985494 et al J2 GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent v. BEAR CREEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,030 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MIELE LAW GROUP, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex Parte 6933608 et al Ex parte KAIJO CORPORATION Appellant 90/007,861, 90/008,629 and 90/010,340 BOALICK 305/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SNELL & WILMER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SoCAL IP LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER TRAN, MAI HUONG C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3657 Ex Parte 7559414 B2 et al SHIMANO INC. Requester and Respondent v. SCRAM LLC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,309 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) Third Party Requester: DELAND LAW OFFICE Patent Owner: SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C. EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

The closest support we can find for Shimano’s position is the doctrine of “prosecution disclaimer” or “prosecution history estoppel” where statements made by a Patent Owner during prosecution of the patent can limit the scope of the claim, once issued in a patent. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories Inc., 429 F3d 1052, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, during reexamination, claims are given their broadest reas
onable interpretation as they would be understood in the context of the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d at 1379. The estoppel or disclaimer doctrine does not operate in the same way during reexamination proceedings.

Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 77 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2138.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Panchev et al 10/496,322 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Vladimir Panchev Marieta Pancheva Adelina Suvandjieva EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1635 Ex Parte Roberts et al 09/972,245 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/077,995 KRATZ 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1744 Ex Parte Monk et al 11/726,964 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, EDMUND H

1765 Ex Parte Maziers 10/512,388 HANLON 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LU, C CAIXIA

1774 Ex Parte Smith 11/495,406 SMITH 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER SORKIN, DAVID L

1786 Ex Parte Elschner et al 10/910,042 SMITH 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hoover et al 10/155,723 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Melillo 10/836,814 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Lee 12/000,576 COURTENAY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER WILSON, ALLAN R

2818 Ex Parte FUKURO et al 11/533,370 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/102(b) RABIN & Berdo, PC EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gerberding 10/063,937 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3761 Ex Parte Steger et al 11/118,893 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

uniroyal, smith, translogic, simpson, polyvision

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/501,072 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1717 Ex Parte Theodorus van Esbroeck et al 09/865,180 PAK 103(a) JOHN S. PRATT, ESQ KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE

1726 Ex Parte Yandrasits et al 11/170,456 WARREN 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN

1728 Ex Parte Kelly et al 11/253,069 COLAIANNI 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER DAM, DUSTIN Q

1742 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/687,471 TIMM 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1772 Ex Parte Farshid et al 10/702,751 COLAIANNI 103(a) CHEVRON CORPORATION EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D

1776 Ex Parte Glad et al 11/570,530 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Perthou 09/752,015 OWENS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO

Thus, the Examiner has not established that even if the references were combined as proposed by the Examiner, the Appellants’ claimed invention would result. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

3674 Ex Parte Ueda 11/074,695 McCARTHY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Whited 11/358,176 PATE III 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

3727 Ex Parte Koenig 10/692,703 PATE III 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3746 Ex Parte Oo et al 10/927,556 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HAMO, PATRICK

3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/315,278 COCKS 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3781 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/101,932 ADAMS 103(a)/obvious-type double patenting BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J


We agree with Appellants that the two-way test is the proper standard for making a determination of obviousness-type double-patenting on this record (see App. Br. 18-22; see also Ex parte Smith et al., (BPAI Nov. 17, 2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Guenther et al 11/732,617 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Gage 10/072,531 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H

2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,639 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,531 HAHN 103(A)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Shum et al 10/286,396 PATE III 103(a) 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,538 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Kolter et al 10/096,835 SCHEINER 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T

1634 Ex Parte Lee 11/957,334 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte SAMOILOV 11/752,477 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

1729 Ex Parte Fereshtehkhou et al 11/091,223 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1741 Ex Parte Fazlani 11/268,286 COLAIANNI 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTE concurring NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1763 Ex Parte Kinney et al 11/281,006 MILLS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

1772 Ex Parte Merrill et al 11/515,539 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D

1784 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11/768,955 GUEST 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global LEE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/148,967 KRIVAK concurring MacDONALD 103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Pihlajamaki et al 10/899,322 HUGHES 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH

2467 Ex Parte Rabie et al 10/868,568 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B

2854 Ex Parte Roland 10/576,031 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E

A flexible teachings, suggestions, or motivations (TSM) test remains the primary guarantor against a non-statutory hindsight analysis. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s the Supreme Court suggests, a flexible approach to the TSM test prevents hindsight and focuses on evidence before the time of invention.”).

The TSM test, flexibly applied, merely assures that the obviousness test proceeds on the basis of evidence-teachings, suggestions (a tellingly broad term), or motivations (an equally broad term)-that arise before the time of invention as the statute requires. As KSR requires, those teachings, suggestions, or motivations need not always be written references but may be found within the knowledge and creativity of ordinarily skilled artisans.”

Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Metz et al 11/037,644 HOFF 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER GARCIA, JOANNIE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Spelman 09/814,210 KAUFFMAN 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

3632 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/941,231 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Michael B. McNeil Liell & McNeil Attorneys PC EXAMINER LE, TAN

3651 Ex Parte Guldenfels et al 10/567,634 LEE 103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A

3657 Ex Parte Scheckelhoff et al 11/347,389 BROWN 103(a) 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hugick et al 11/139,830 PATE III 112(2)/103(a) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP EXAMINER ADDISU, SARA

A trademark simply does not function in this manner. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982).

...

Appellants cite PolyVision Corp. v. Smart Technologies Inc., 501 F.Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007). App. Br. 10. In that case, the District Court declined to follow Simpson, admitting that it acted to preserve the validity of patent claims at issue, in spite of the Court’s inclination to conclude that the reference to the Windows® trademark rendered the claims indefinite. Id. at 1065. The Court stated it was following “the Federal Circuit’s admonition to construe claims so as to sustain their validity, if possible.” Id. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, while the patent owner argued that the trademark was used as an adjective rather than as a noun, the court expressly rejected this argument, as do we.

3766 Ex Parte MacAdam et al 11/120,633 PATE III 103(a) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER GEDEON, BRIAN T

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Recker et al 10/888,542 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

REMANDED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Moehlenbruck et al 10/543,931 SCHEINER obviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

hoeksema

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Moosman et al 10/148,557 GREEN 112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER TELLER, ROY R

1655 Ex Parte Jia et al 11/457,388 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER MELLER, MICHAEL V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 11/063,546 HANLON 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1731 Ex Parte Wilzbacher et al 11/199,618 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

1761 Ex Parte Gohl et al 10/345,090 KRATZ 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1767 Ex Parte McGinnis et al 12/008,534 GREEN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STANLEY, JANE L

1783 Ex Parte Kmetz 11/654,302 NAGUMO 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Katayama 10/501,082 STEPHENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MUSA, ABDELNABI O

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Bobb et al 10/374,291 MORGAN 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CAVALLARI, DANIEL J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Hughes 11/595,026 PATE III 112(1)/103(a) PETER K HAHN LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON, SCRIPPS, LLP. EXAMINER AVILA, STEPHEN P

3656 Ex Parte Oishi et al 10/905,075 KERINS 103(a)/112(2) DELAND LAW OFFICE EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ausnit 11/451,793 BROWN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Bhagavatula et al 10/948,995 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER WONG, ERIC K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 7052207 et al Ex parte BRIAN J. WIMBERGER 90/009,717 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, PA EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEE, JONG SUK

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Mandel et al 10/768,798 PRATS 112(2) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (SF) EXAMINER HAYES, ROBERT CLINTON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Esser et al 10/641,995 ROBERTSON 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SHEEHAN, JOHN P

1746 Ex Parte Cadieux et al 11/642,150 GUEST 103(a) Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J

1763 Ex Parte Verhaverbeke 10/873,261 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) APPLIED MATERIALS/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1786 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/011,587 McKELVEY 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

1798 Ex Parte Martin Rivera et al 10/554,213 McKELVEY 102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

To be sure, a reference used in a § 103 context must be enabling. In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).

Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02, 2144.09, 2145

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Welbergen 10/507,509 MORGAN 103(a) JACK SHORE MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, PC EXAMINER VIDWAN, JASJIT S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Morris et al 09/968,540 MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/101/102/Double
Patenting FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Raj et al 09/839,023 RUGGIERO 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER VANDERPUYE, KENNETH N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Fahrbach et al 10/538,526 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER WHITE, DYLAN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Nyeboer et al 11/122,686 LEE 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

REHEARING

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Malamud et al 10/927,842 KRIVAK 103(a) KELLER LAPUMA WOODARD PC - IV EXAMINER BALAOING, ARIEL A

Monday, September 26, 2011

nomiya

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Selvamanickam 10/736,210 SMITH 103(a) ABEL LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

1716 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/929,348 SMITH 103(a) Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1735 Ex Parte Propheter-Hinckley et al 11/589,581 SMITH 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P

1742 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/633,203 SMITH 103(a) NOVA Chemicals Inc./Karen S. Lockhart EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T

1745 Ex Parte MOELLER et al 11/620,952 SMITH 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1783 Ex Parte Hornick et al 10/979,265 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER MILLER, DANIEL H

1789 Ex Parte Mussawir-Key 10/511,694 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Harding 12/022,423 CRAWFORD 102(b) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sansevero et al 10/550,927 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Opie et al 10/863,009 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Phil Mitchell Scottsdale Medical Devices EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 6964688 et al 90/009,387 Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLPEXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

“It is necessary to consider everything appellants have said about what is prior art to determine the exact scope of their admission.” In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 (CCPA 1975).

Nomiya, In re, 509 F.2d 566, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2129, 2258

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Bishop et al 10/841,046 WALSH 103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1627 Ex Parte Bosch et al 10/697,716 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 10/988,179 SMITH 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1741 Ex Parte Bajorek 10/659,006 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1765 Ex Parte Damme 11/793,582 SMITH 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER TISCHLER, FRANCES

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Broms et al 10/154,742 FETTING 101/112(1) IM IP Law PLLC EXAMINER HAMMOND III, THOMAS M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Watanabe 11/637,839 CLARKE 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN

Friday, September 23, 2011

kerkhoven, cross med.

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11/810,639 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WALTERS JR, ROBERT S

1723 Ex Parte Gui et al 11/058,850 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M

1731 Ex Parte Lo et al 10/511,865 HASTINGS 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

Additionally, the Examiner repeatedly relies upon In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (Ans. 4, 5, 7), to combine the three applied references, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two or three
compositions, each taught for the same purpose to yield a third composition for that very purpose.” See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, page 4, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

In Kerkhoven, however, the claims required “no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents.” Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850. In contrast, in the present rejection, the Examiner is making at least two substitutions to the Reynolds invention in order to arrive at the current claimed invention...
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kitchin 10/208,995 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Ross et al 11/198,699 GONSALVES 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Dubbert et al 10/826,782 HORNER 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Haering et al 11/169,773 SCHEINER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PRICE, ELVIS O
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Tuttle 11/214,339 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P

(motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

1761 Ex Parte Frankenbach et al 11/405,729 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H

Thursday, September 22, 2011

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Schiffman 10/379,157 LANE 102(e)/103(a) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Long et al 11/986,074 FRANKLIN 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Kapoor et al 11/041,815 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER KIECHLE, CAITLIN ANNE


AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Maas et al 12/279,792 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

1622 Ex Parte Graham 10/976,507 WALSH 112(1) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER KOSAR, ANDREW D

1623 Ex Parte Petito et al 11/100,546 GRIMES 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN

1649 Ex Parte Dochniak et al 11/201,807 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) Michael J. Dochniak EXAMINER CHERNYSHEV, OLGA N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Trevathan 10/383,261 SMITH 103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER AL AUBAIDI, RASHA S

2627 Ex Parte Hagiya et al 11/153,164 BAUMEISTER 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER CASTRO, ANGEL A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Stoner 11/153,975 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHOY, PAN G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gregorich 10/864,665 SCHAFER 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Flohr 11/059,941 GREENHUT 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

dillon

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Feenstra et al 11/294,603 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BERNHARDT, EMILY B

[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound . . . be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound . . . will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant.

In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” Id. “[T]he burden (and opportunity) then falls on applicant to rebut that prima facie case.” Id. at 692.

Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have. . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed composition and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed compound or composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.

Id. at 692-693 (internal citations omitted).

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/620,334 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1733 Ex Parte Hiraiwa et al 10/661,638 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

1763 Ex Parte Huynh 10/797,826 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Avery Dennison Corporation EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

1787 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/509,319 NAGUMO 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

1798 Ex Parte Giron et al 10/564,501 KIMLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Sylthe et al 11/251,551 CHEN 103(a) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, SHAHID AL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kramer 10/104,863 LUCAS 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER BLAIR, DOUGLAS B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Gierhart et al 10/356,134 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Droux et al 10/541,121 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALPERN, MARK

1763 Ex Parte Loth et al 12/119,138 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D


AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/517,957 MILLS 103(a) Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1634 Ex Parte Tanaami et al 11/446,225 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Wieser 11/341,292 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK J

1747 Ex Parte McCormick et al 10/853,750 WARREN 103(a) Cynthia L. Foulke NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

1763 Ex Parte Brobeil et al 11/523,532 GREEN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1788 Ex Parte Li et al 11/314,113 KRATZ 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kolar et al 10/432,316 CHEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Johannsen et al 10/349,921 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Abadeer et al 11/340,340 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

2857 Ex Parte McClanahan et al 11/185,371 HAHN 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES

2861 Ex Parte Sampath et al 11/170,845 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Starkey et al 09/930,668 DESHPANDE 101/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER PORTER, RACHEL L

The preamble recites a “computer-implemented method,” the steps of the method fail to explicitly require any of the steps to be performed on a computer. As such, this recitation in the preamble is a mere nominal recitation of structure. At most, a “computer-implemented method” ties the process to any general-purpose computer. We find no evidence that the claims require the method steps to be hosted on a computer.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Lazar 10/098,851 McCOLLUM 103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Madden et al 11/166,975 WHITEHEAD, JR. USEFUL ARTS IP MICHAEL J. URE EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E