SEARCH

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

Friday, April 29, 2011

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Luu et al 11/297,201 WALSH 112(2)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Georgia-Pacific LLC EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1732 Ex Parte Uhrlandt et al 10/516,308 SMITH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER QIAN, YUN

1792 Ex Parte Ettinger et al 11/298,555 KRATZ 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER PATEL, RITA RAMESH


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Torabi 10/386,530 HOFF 103(a) FAY SHARPE/LUCENT EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Freeman 10/574,185 KRIVAK 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

2629 Ex Parte Stromberg 10/312,959 FRAHM 112(1)/103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2858 Ex Parte Al-Anbuky et al 10/477,534 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER BERHANU, SAMUEL

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

3629 Ex Parte Royall et al 10/428,097 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC EXAMINER CASLER, TRACI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3716 Ex Parte Sterchi et al 10/821,269 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER SUHOL, DMITRY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1723 Ex Parte Ploeg et al 11/609,732 SMITH 102(b)/102(e) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3747 Ex Parte Crary 11/972,927 BROWN 102(e)/103(a) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER BACON, ANTHONY L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2837 CLUB CAR, INC. Respondent v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant
95/001,278 7,332,881 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffee, LLP Third Party Requester: Michael Best & Friedrick, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER LEYKIN, RITA

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2608 Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,064 5,577,100 TURNER 112(1)/102(b)/102(e) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON, PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER MAUNG, NAY AUNG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Grassetti et al 10/044,463 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1745 Ex Parte Miller et al 11/431,486 GARRIS 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1782 Ex Parte Holloway 11/293,225 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DYE, RENA

1782 Ex Parte Kazich 10/800,225 NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER DYE, RENA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Ure 11/145,713 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Michael J. Ure EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/611,021 DIXON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) International Business Machines Corporation EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A

2444 Ex Parte Peer 10/449,283 MacDONALD 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2600 Communications

2617 Ex Parte Bejerano et al 11/026,904 HAHN 103(a) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER TAYLOR, BARRY W

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

3621 Ex Parte Jo 10/029,240 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J

3662 Ex Parte Leach et al 10/950,209 TIERNEY 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC EXAMINER BARKER, MATTHEW M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3761 Ex Parte Yang et al 11/011,716 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

REHEARING

DENIED


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Stuckman et al 10/313,998 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - Roebuck EXAMINER SCHNURR, JOHN R

VACATED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Merten et al 11/281,259 TIERNEY 102(e)/103(a) Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Phillips, gulack, diamond1, ngai, lowry, cruciferous, MEHL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Pacetti et al 11/487,059 GRIMES 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Leistra et al 10/698,659 KRATZ 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gernold 10/784,196 MacDONALD 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/406,651 MacDONALD 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

While a general-usage dictionary can be helpful in understanding claim language, a general dictionary “cannot overcome art-specific evidence of the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

2471 Ex Parte Barron 10/401,236 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/893,216 SAADAT 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gass 10/944,535 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Barbour 11/045,703 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, AKILILU K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Booth et al 11/250,043 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, SU C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bruck 10/912,302 GRIMES 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU MINH
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Hamamjy et al 11/114,261 OWENS 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,667 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barghouthi 11/186,600 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2175 Ex Parte Balinsky et al
11/190,436 DANG 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2186 Ex Parte Xu et al 11/224,418 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Cross et al 11/154,897 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SERROU, ABDELALI

The subject matter presented in claim 1 on appeal relates to features that differ from the prior art solely on the basis of “non-functional descriptive material,” which is generally not given patentable weight when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter. See id. at 1384; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed Cir. 1994).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
2629 Ex Parte Goodwin et al 11/122,610 RUGGIERO 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER CHOW, YUK


2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2816 Ex Parte Viswanathan 11/400,850 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAI L
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gass 10/984,643 PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

In order for the Examiner to show that a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art, the Examiner must establish that the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with or includes the claim limitation. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

lantech, robertson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kim 11/207,126 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):
The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.
...We acknowledge that it is improper to base an obviousness rejection on an unknown inherent property present in the prior art. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“'That which may be inherent is not necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.' Such a retrospective view of inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection.”) (quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966)).

Rijckaert, In re, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . .2112, 2141.02, 2144.08

1625 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/931,481 McCOLLUM 112(1) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP EXAMINER SEAMAN, D MARGARET M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Hutter et al 10/474,022 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Trampuz et al 11/083,196 GRIMES 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER MACAULEY, SHERIDAN RLink
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Selwyn et al 11/317,374 WALSH 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EXAMINER HAMMER, KATIE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Rummel et al 11/007,634 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER NDUBIZU, CHUKA CLEMENT

See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Vargo et al 10/291,279 NAGUMO 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER KNABLE, GEOFFREY L

1786 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/347,406 OWENS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Weissman et al 10/689,903 STEPHENS 101/102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA

2162 Ex Parte Baek et al 10/973,959 DANG 101/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

2186 Ex Parte Bellows et al 11/008,768 COURTENAY 103(a) Leslie Payne IBM Corporation EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/281,056 HOMERE 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

danly, haas, desilva, young, sneed

REVERSED

2600 Communications

2617 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/891,883 SAADAT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Sperry et al 10/979,583 STAICOVICI 103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Piepgras et al 11/419,660 SAADAT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Philips Intellectual Property and Standards EXAMINER PAYNE, SHARON E
The Examiner, citing MPEP § 2114, found that the phrase “to provide the at least one control signal to the at least one lighting unit” is functional language not entitled to patentable weight as it merely describes an intended use of the apparatus (Ans. 5, 23-24). Appellants contend that “a conductor ‘provid[ing] the at least one control signal’ claims what a conductor is, not what a conductor does” (Reply Br. 13 (brackets in original); see also App. Br. 14). ... We find that this distinction between the conductors for the power and the control signal is a structural distinction that must be given patentable weight, see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959).


Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2114


AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Hakiel et al 10/667,581 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Nordstrand 10/302,564 BARRETT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3684 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/237,424 LORIN 102(b) TIMOTHY P. O'HAGAN EXAMINER VIZVARY, GERALD C

Cf. Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation."); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[An appeal] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11/415,333 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ESHETE, ZELALEM

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

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

3751 Ex Parte Adelman 11/650,711 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

Monday, April 25, 2011

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER
WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J

Friday, April 22, 2011

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1628 Ex Parte VanRheenen 10/815,351 WALSH 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER BADIO, BARBARA P

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Evers et al 11/114,351 KRATZ 102(b) DADE BEHRING INC. EXAMINER GORDON, BRIAN R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Piel 10/761,920 SIU 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, NIRAV B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Stewart et al 11/211,978 BAHR 103(a) Floyd B. Carothers CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER STERLING, AMY JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Newton et al 10/575,412 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER GIARDINO JR, MARK A

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

1724 BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ADVANCED TREATMENT SCIENCES, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,237 7,105,091 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PRINCE, FRED G

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Parr 11/376,560 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER CAMERON, ERMA C

1767 Ex Parte Toro et al 11/499,051 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

Thursday, April 21, 2011

york prod., anchor wall

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Needelman et al 11/028,094 BAHR 102(b) OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C. EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/787,641 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Antrim et al 10/874,686 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/077,330 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER VU, TRISHA U

2161 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10/624,085 JEFFERY 103(a) Perkins Coie LLP EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD

2183 Ex Parte Alexander et al 10/835,105 BARRY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Symons et al 09/971,857 HAHN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Schroder 11/657,677 BARRETT 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER MEISLIN, DEBRA S

3734 Ex Parte Pavich et al 11/106,094 O’NEILL 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER BLATT, ERIC D


We note that the word “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ... In addition, we note that use of words of approximation, such as “substantially,” in a patent claim implies the avoidance of a strict numerical boundary of the specified parameter. See Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996), 2181

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

st. regis, harza, ochiai, dillon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 10/897,016 GARRIS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1735 Ex Parte Wilks 11/357,458 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1793 Ex Parte Hu et al 10/801,424 PAK 103(a) W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. EXAMINER BRUNSMAN, DAVID M


2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Soylemez et al 10/841,941 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kleinsteiber et al 10/062,125 SIU 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Brocade-Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Mahy et al 11/065,369 O’NEILL 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s reliance on the case law of St. Regis Paper Company v. Bemis Company, Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960), to duplicate parts so that the proposed modification includes a plurality of arms, does not consider the facts of either St. Regis or Harza and amounts to the use of an improper per se rule of obviousness. ... Nor does the case law of either St. Regis or Harza, relied upon by the Examiner, demonstrate per se obviousness for duplicating the single bendable member taught by Schwarzschild to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no per se rule of obviousness exists).

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

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . 706.02(n), 2116.01

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 6,373,537 SIU 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Patent Owner: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLC Third Party Requesters: Bruce K. Lagerman, Lagerman and Associates, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PATENT OWNER MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER BRUCE K. LAGERMAN LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T


AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Horpel et al 11/578,664 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1767 Ex Parte Neal et al 11/401,510 HASTINGS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A

While we agree that the problem faced by an applicant is a relevant factor, a teaching or suggestion of applicant's problem is not always required for a prima facie case of obviousness. An invention may be obvious for reasons the inventor did not contemplate. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc).

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

1787 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/779,373 OWENS 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Anspach et al 11/135,460 COURTENAY 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N

2174 Ex Parte Ferrarini et al 10/948,703 SIU 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B


2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...

See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

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, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01

3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R


[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.


Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

Monday, April 18, 2011

rubin, kao, cordis, gosteli, vas-cath

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2443 Ex Parte Holmeide et al 10/465,945 HOMERE 103(a) Michael M Rickin ABB Inc EXAMINER FEARER, MARK D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2893 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11/009,575 KRIVAK 103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

The Examiner asserts there is no difference between Lee’s unitary heat treatment and the claimed invention’s two-step heat treatment (Ans. 11). In support of this conclusion, the Examiner cites Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (BPAI 1959) (Ans. 8, 11, 15, and 16). However, the Examiner’s reliance on Rubin, is misplaced, as Rubin does not address splitting one step into two, only the transposition of two steps.

Rubin, Ex parte, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2179 Ex Parte Haynes et al 10/717,888 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

2183 Ex Parte Schwinn 10/932,730 HOMERE 112(1)/102(b) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M


“To fulfill the written description requirement [under 35 U.S.C. § 112], the patent specification must describe an invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 967-968 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Our reviewing court has cautioned, however, that “[t]he disclosure as originally filed does not … have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Cordis Corp., 339 F.3d at 1364 (internal citation omitted). “Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Put another way, “the applicant must … convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .
1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . .
608.01(p), 715.03, 2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3765 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/361,767 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) David B. Johnson EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Fujii et al 10/532,424 HASTINGS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MAKI, STEVEN D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2455 Ex Parte Brewer et al 10/862,684 MacDONALD 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

2600 Communications

2627 Ex Parte Rush et al 10/756,664 MacDONALD 102(e) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) EXAMINER FEILD, JOSEPH H