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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, July 29, 2011

bush

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Suda et al 10/540,632 WALSH 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Kannan et al 10/525,797 FRANKLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1726 Ex Parte Schwab 10/578,461 COLAIANNI 102(b) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1735 Ex Parte Matsumoto et al 11/325,529 KRATZ 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1778 Ex Parte Grangeon et al 10/451,532 OWENS 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

1778 Ex Parte Nakashima 11/090,081 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JOHN K. CORBIN EXAMINER
REIFSNYDER, DAVID A

1781 Ex Parte Wilkey 10/369,363 PAK 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1781 Ex Parte Bartkowska et al 10/664,101 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1785 Ex Parte Hino et al 10/477,917 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

1792 Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 10/456,733 KRATZ 103(a) ABEL LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMIENR TALBOT, BRIAN K

1796 Ex Parte Zaschke et al 10/507,315 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Adler et al 10/095,797 WINSOR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER
TRAN, QUOC A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Southern et al 10/034,446 PATE III 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - NEW YORK EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3644 Ex Parte Grauzer et al 10/998,048 PATE III 112(2)/112(1) Dickinson Wright PLLC James E. Ledbetter, Esq. EXAMINER SANDERSON, JOSEPH W

3644 Ex Parte Senter et al 11/233,558 ASTORINO 103(a) Setter Roche LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Haas 09/967,500 PATE III 102(b) Mark A Litman and Associates, P.A. EXAMINER VO, PETER DUNG BA

3733 Ex Parte Teitelbaum 10/688,135 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY

3767 Ex Parte Woehr et al 11/497,188 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, BHISMA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Jaspers et al 11/547,098 PRATS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Pitt et al 10/471,309 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Bergman et al 10/993,377 DANG 102(b)/103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Gabara et al 10/668,544 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER CASCA, FRED A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Hamakita et al 10/796,301 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER SCHARICH, MARC A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Janesky 10/978,643 SPAHN 103(a) Thomas L. Tully PERMAN AND GREEN EXAMINER DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[W]here a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).

3716 Ex Parte Locke 10/140,601 BARRETT 101/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3721 Ex Parte Wild et al 11/121,546 PATE III 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K

REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2851 Ex Parte 6454472B1 et al Ex parte SEMES COMPANY, LTD. Appellant 90/008,321 CHEN 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MARTIN M. ZOLTICK ROTHWELL FIGG ERNST & MANBECK P.C.EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER RUTLEDGE, DELLA J

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Di Salvo et al 11/554,214 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER HEYER, DENNIS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/011,596 PAK 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LIN, JAMES

1778 Ex Parte Rieth et al 10/960,132 COLAIANNI Dissenting NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) CLAUDE ANDERSON EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/522,006 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 102(e) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Barlow et al 10/284,165 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Levy et al 10/060,049 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER RAMAN, USHA

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Ignatin 10/938,095 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2618 Ex Parte Becker 10/533,728 KRIVAK 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER HU, RUI MENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Ramirez et al 10/758,845 SAINDON 112(1)/103(a) KANG LIM EXAMINER
WEBER, JONATHAN C

3644 Ex Parte Tsengas et al 10/963,953 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRINH T

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Strang 10/469,592 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MOORE, KARLA A

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Lindell et al 10/481,053 COLAIANNI 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER FELTON, MICHAEL J

1775 Ex Parte West et al 10/701,097 COLAIANNI 103(a) EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1782 Ex Parte Lehman 10/902,300 COLAIANNI 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

1784 Ex Parte Takayama et al 11/042,187 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, JASON L

Thursday, July 28, 2011

saab, pfizer, pharmastem

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Guldberg 10/399,899 ADAMS 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/984,355 SMITH 103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER CROUSE, BRETT ALAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte E et al 10/202,312 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3rd 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir 2006)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/799,961 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KRAIG, WILLIAM F

A dependent claim in a patent that fails to “‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [independent] claim to which [the dependent claim] refers” is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Casco-Arias et al 10/439,570 KIM 103(a) MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Halliburton et al 10/777,770 STAICOVICI 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

3751 Ex Parte Helmetsie et al 10/774,339 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11/862,475 TIMM 103(a) H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L


REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2771 Ex Parte 6076094 et al Ex parte IO RESEARCH PTY. LIMITED, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,058 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Richard Kim MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER HO, RUAY L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 7000325 et al Bunzl Processor Distribution LLC, Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of Bettcher Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,130 ROBERTSON 103(a) PATENT OWNER: TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: CLYDE L. SMITH THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 5741705 et al Ex parte KERRY GROUP, PLC Appellant 90/010,527 LEBOVITZ 103(a)/112(1)/305 FOR PATENT OWNER: IAN McLEOD FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

To decide whether a composition, device, or process would have been obvious in light of the prior art, it must be determined whether, at the time of invention, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1723 Ex Parte 7281842 et al Vita-Mix Corporation Requester v. K-TEC, Inc. Patent Owner 95/000,339 ROBERTSON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & HART THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER COOLEY, CHARLES E

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/981,663 MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1644 Ex Parte Ringler et al 10/118,600 ADAMS 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Strebelle 10/567,263 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LORENGO, JERRY A

1762 Ex Parte Vandaele 11/498,336 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/353,110 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER JARRETT, RYAN A

2161 Ex Parte Aman et al 10/428,893 DANG 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2169 Ex Parte Kwon 11/193,347 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER VO, CECILE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Murphy et al 10/408,365 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2445 Ex Parte Li et al 10/025,790 MORGAN 103(a) David T. Nikaido RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Forbes et al 10/225,605 ROBERTSON 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER NADAV, ORI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Eason et al 10/477,055 SCHAFER 103(a) Davidson Davidson & Kappel EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

kohler, mills, bozek, boe

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/27/2011 1612 Ex Parte Peyton et al 11/220,159 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C

07/26/2011 1615 Ex Parte Fuchs et al 10/312,077 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/26/2011 1771 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/815,276 TIMM 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Stephens et al 10/860,343 BAUMEISTER 103(a) COOL PATENT, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/26/2011 2827 Ex Parte Riedel et al 11/220,872 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) EITAN MEHULAL LAW GROUP EXAMINER HO, HOAI V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/26/2011 3721 Ex Parte Milliman 11/728,698 O’NEILL 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP /b/a Covidien EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/26/2011 1798 Ex Parte O'DONNELL 10/522,191 OWENS 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY EXAMINER GRAY, JILL M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/27/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kingsbury et al 11/426,144 WINSOR 101/102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER OBERLY, VAN HONG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/26/2011 2431 Ex Parte Hars 10/540,185 JEFFERY 102(e) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER AVERY, JEREMIAH L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/26/2011 3748 Ex Parte Sun 11/386,306 SPAHN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DAVIS, MARY ALICE

07/27/2011 3769 Ex Parte Shanks et al McCARTHY 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) ETHERTON LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON III, HENRY M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/26/2011 1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).

07/26/2011 1747 Ex Parte Sandstrom 11/046,479 HASTINGS 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

07/26/2011 1765 Ex Parte Butler et al 10/966,969 HASTINGS 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER TISCHLER, FRANCES

07/26/2011 1787 Ex Parte Younes et al 11/893,447 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER FREEMAN, JOHN D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/26/2011 2163 Ex Parte Bohmer et al 10/792,912 COURTENAY 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HO, BINH VAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/26/2011 2448 Ex Parte Pineau et al 09/842,754 DROESCH 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/26/2011 2874 Ex Parte Spillane et al 11/158,660 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RAHLL, JERRY T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/27/2011 3635 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/265,498 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PLUMMER, ELIZABETH A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/26/2011 3715 Ex Parte Feygin et al 10/806,531 ASTORINO 103(a) DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER HU, KANG

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references
. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

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

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.

Monday, July 25, 2011

perfect web

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Dudley et al 10/914,692 COURTENAY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baer et al 10/392,758 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V

REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 2824 Ex parte Seed Layers Technology, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,846 6,136,707 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: FORTKORT & HOUSTON P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WITHROW & TERRANOVA P.L.L.C. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PYONIN, ADAM


AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1723 Ex Parte Koll 11/157,993 GUEST 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Mirchandani et al 10/848,437 GARRIS 102(a)/103(a) TraskBritt/BHI-ATI EXAMINER CHRISTIE, ROSS J

07/22/2011 1781 Ex Parte Kwitek 11/249,466 MILLS 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER WATTS, JENNA A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3764 Ex Parte Geibel et al 11/041,860 KAUFFMAN 103(a) BLYNN L. SHIDELER THE BLK LAW GROUP EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L


See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“while an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence … it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference”).

Friday, July 22, 2011

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X

REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D


AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

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

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

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

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

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

Thursday, July 21, 2011

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/20/2011 1613 Ex Parte Artisa et al 10/923,000 McCOLLUM 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/21/2011 1761 Ex Parte Noecker et al 12/056,100 FRANKLIN 102(a)/103(a) LONDA, BRUCE S. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA EXAMINER ELHILO, EISA B

07/20/2011 1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST 103(a)/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/21/2011 2834 Ex Parte Telep et al 11/245,340 DILLON 102(b) WARN, HOFFMANN, MILLER & OZGA, P.C. EXAMINER DESAI, NAISHADH N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/20/2011 3773 Ex Parte Evans et al 10/633,254 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Rutan & Tucker, LLP. EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/20/2011 2827 Ex Parte BALASURAMANIAN 11/309,174 MANTIS MERCADER 112(2)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER MAI, SON LUU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/20/2011 3732 Ex Parte Conrad et al 11/429,927 SAINDON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K

07/20/2011 3741 Ex Parte Slovisky et al 10/931,502 SAINDON 103(a) HONEYWELL/IFL EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/20/2011 1716 Ex Parte WHITE et al 11/776,980 GARRIS 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER FORD, NATHAN K

07/20/2011 1774 Ex Parte Foster 10/361,116 HASTINGS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER LEUNG, JENNIFER A

07/20/2011 1767 Ex Parte Havens et al 11/016,835 TIMM 103(a) Howard Troffkin EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/20/2011 2186 Ex Parte Andruszkiewicz et al 11/041,842 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2443 Ex Parte Anonsen et al 10/201,544 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

07/20/2011 2452 Ex Parte Madhavan 10/635,741 COURTENAY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/20/2011 2833 Ex Parte Gore 10/947,693 POTHIER 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

REHEARING DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2163 Ex Parte Cochran 11/702,509 DANG 102(a)/103(a) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

diamond1, comiskey, bilski, rice, gutta, exxon research, miller,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/19/2011 1627 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/724,095 WALSH 103(a) Kevin D. Erickson Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3623 Ex Parte TEMPLETON 09/416,278 PETRAVICK 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PETERS VERNY , L.L.P. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (S. Ct. 1981); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to reach an obviousness rejection on appeal after concluding many claims were non-statutory under § 101); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 n.1 (noting that § 101 is a threshold requirement and that the Examiner may reject claims solely on that basis); In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140, 141 (CCPA 1942) (finding it unnecessary to reach rejection based on prior art after concluding claims were directed to nonstatutory subject matter); Ex Parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1036 (BPAI 2009) (per curiam) (expanded panel) (precedential) (as the claims on appeal do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, the prior art rejections need not be considered).

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


07/19/2011 3624 Ex Parte Troyer et al 10/652,139 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products &1amp; Design
07/19/2011 3764 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 10/040,575 CALVE 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2172 Ex Parte Beltran et al 10/781,307 DANG 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

07/19/2011 2174 Ex Parte Law et al 10/830,926 DANG 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER KE, PENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3652 Ex Parte Gifford et al 10/908,594 COCKS 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I

A claim is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Breadth in scope does not equal indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971).

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04


AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/20/2011 1643 Ex Parte King et al 10/731,759 MILLS 103(a) COZEN O'CONNOR, P.C. EXAMINER SANG, HONG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/20/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schryver 10/778,366 FRANKLIN 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/20/2011 2168 Ex Parte Needham et al 10/880,301 CHEN 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2600 Communications
07/19/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/744,879 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER TUCKER, WESLEY J

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

symbol tech., beckman, festo, lockwood

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1618 Ex Parte Inosaka et al 11/113,969 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/16/2011 1724 Ex Parte Peragine et al 10/519,691 OWENS 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2173 Ex Parte Ackley 10/960,385 DILLON 102(b) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2816 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/286,562 KRIVAK 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

07/19/2011 2823 Ex Parte Shiraiwa et al 11/469,164 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3654 Ex Parte Fargo et al 10/564,873 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Newman et al 10/842,788 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

07/18/2011 3761 Ex Parte Ellingboe et al 11/333,671 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3685 Ex Parte Koppen et al 10/868,299 MOHANTY 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3714 BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. IGT Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,277 6,431,983 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER ROBERT L. KOVELMAN STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER WHITE, CARMEN D

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3749 TECPHARMA LICENSING AG Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of NOVO NORDISK A/S Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,288 6,547,764 SONG 103(a) cc Patent Owner: Marc A. Began, Esq. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cc Third Party Requester: Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLPEXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN


In particular, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purposed of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Techs. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, "[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989).

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01

Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . 2121.01

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1616 Ex Parte Volgas et al 09/916,611 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

07/18/2011 1628 Ex Parte Meythaler 10/885,175 FREDMAN 103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/18/2011 1767 Ex Parte Dallavia 11/701,217 WALSH 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2624 Ex Parte Albertelli et al 11/685,338 KRIVAK 101 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER SETH, MANAV

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3682 Ex Parte Minifie et al 11/352,895 LORIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). Here the claimed “kit” is not the same as the co-package disclosed in the specification. At best, the disclosed co-package renders the “kit” obvious. But “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) . . 1302.14, 2173.02

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Toida 10/853,116 O’NEILL 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2857 Ex Parte Moessner et al 11/021,591 JEFFERY 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L

See Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7,162, 7,168 (Feb. 9, 2011) (noting that Examiners should not construe means-plus-function limitations as covering pure software implementations when the supporting disclosure discusses implementing the invention via hardware and software).