SEARCH

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

Monday, October 31, 2011

KCJ

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Sakurai et al 11/924,052 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1715 Ex Parte WHITE 11/565,400 COLAIANNI 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

1717 Ex Parte Pacetti 11/649,497 KRATZ 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER BOWMAN, ANDREW J

1723 Ex Parte Emesh et al 11/164,270 OWENS 103(a) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Novellus) EXAMINER LEADER, WILLIAM T

1734 Ex Parte Harutyunyan et al 11/723,185 KRATZ 103(a) Capitol City TechLaw, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1742 Ex Parte Papin et al 11/191,816 ROBERTSON 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, PA & MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC EXAMINER THROWER, LARRY W

1747 Ex Parte Radulescu et al 11/324,917 COLAIANNI 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Denton et al 10/889,505 KAUFFMAN 103(a) VEDDER PRICE P.C. EXAMINER JAYNE, DARNELL M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte LaVon et al 11/636,675 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3761 Ex Parte LaVon et al 11/446,460 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3766 Ex Parte Kurzweil et al 11/136,338 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Dumas et al 11/768,112 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type
double patenting MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER CHANDRAKUMAR, NIZAL S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Goldsmith 10/853,976 TIMM 103(a) 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1778 Ex Parte Bagci et al 10/778,523 WARREN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER CECIL, TERRY K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1742 Ex Parte 6074454 et al 90/009,288 08/678,776 Ex parte DELTA FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION, LLC Appellant LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEPHEN L. PETERSON, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER JENKINS, DANIEL J

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Dieterle et al 11/131,256 MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1634 Ex Parte Eickhoff et al 11/233,505 WALSH 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER SHAW, AMANDA MARIE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Kornfalt et al 10/995,201 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1764 Ex Parte Leuninger et al 11/718,729 PAK 103(a)/112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1775 Ex Parte Tebben et al 11/994,123 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Atkinson 10/252,603 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K

2169 Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/970,523 DILLON 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation - Dept. 917 EXAMINER CHAU, DUNG K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Goldfarb et al 10/335,076 DROESCH 103(a) NBCUniversal Media, LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C. EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

We broadly interpret the claim language to include allowing all users to create at least one event (i.e., one or more), or change at least one event. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[A]n indefinite article "a" or "an" in patent parlance carries the meaning of "one or more" in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase "comprising."") (citations omitted). We do not interpret the claim language to require any two users to be able to create or change the same event.

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Reithinger 11/126,095 KRIVAK 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENSEY, BRIAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Wardlaw 10/924,057 HORNER 102(b) WILLIAM C. NORVELL, JR. Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P. EXAMINER FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 103(a)/112(2) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,002 BAHR 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

Friday, October 28, 2011

interactive gift, medichem, winner int'l, mannesmann

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Murthy 11/400,384 GRIMES 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1653 Ex Parte Metters et al 11/034,437 GREEN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SINGH, SATYENDRA K

In addition, “[u]nless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hasegawa et al 11/221,853 TIMM 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Wolfe et al 10/662,683 McCARTHY 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER PHAN, THIEM D

3734 Ex Parte Szabo 10/985,800 SAINDON 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Malik et al 10/264,393 PAK 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Woltman et al 11/408,324 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).

3788 Ex Parte Goodrich et al 11/027,066 SILVERBERG dissenting-in-part BARRETT 102(a)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3742 Ex Parte 6,501,906 et al 95/000,372 09/994,032 ZOBELE ESPANA, S.A. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of C.T.R. CONSULTORIA TECNICA E REPRESENTACOES LDA Patent Owner and Appellant LEBOVITZ 103(a) MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLC EXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3747 Ex Parte 6511509 et al 90/009,348 09/073,877 Ex parte DEPUY MOTECH ACROMED, INC. and LIFENET HEALTH Appellants, Patent Owners SONG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e) For Patent Owner: Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP For Third Party Requester: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER HIRSCH, PAUL J

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Weeks et al 11/557,037 PAK 103(a) Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP EXAMINER DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1746 Ex Parte Broberg et al 10/722,575 KRATZ dissenting-in-part NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

When the phrase “consisting of” occurs in the body of the claim, it limits only the element set forth in that
clause. Mannesmann DeMag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTE concurring NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1777 Ex Parte Antwiler 11/769,579 SMITH 103(a) CaridianBCT, Inc. EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1798 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/287,788 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Schaefer 10/806,868 SMITH 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER VO, TED T

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 11/135,815 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHAUHAN, ULKA J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Park et al 10/872,495 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kempe 10/682,083 SAINDON 103(a) OYEN, WIGGS, GREEN & MUTALA LLP EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

REHEARING

GRANTED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,501 HOFF obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

Thursday, October 27, 2011

marine polymer

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Carow 11/233,242 McCARTHY 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Klein et al 10/290,605 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Brooks 11/252,289 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Brooks & Cameron, PLLC EXAMINER JACKSON, DANIELLE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2621 Ex Parte 7,054,547 B1 et al 95/000,312 NISSIM CORP., Patent Owner and Appellant v. TIME WARNER, INC, Requester and Respondent MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND & NEUSTADT, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER TRAN, THAI Q


Appellant’s effort to avoid the newly applied prior art by belatedly (See FF 17) introducing an overly narrow claim construction and arguing that the claims should be given this narrower interpretation is not an adequate substitute for actually amending the claims to so limit them; when, unlike here, the actual amendment is supported by Appellant’s written description in the underlying patent application . We note that because of Appellant’s arguments to the PTO, it would be reasonable to conclude that “the claims have been amended by disavowal or estoppel.” Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 4435986 at *5 (Fed. Cir. September 26, 2011). Although the decision in Marine Polymer is directed to intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307 after an amendment under § 305, we deem the underlying principle to be equally applicable to an amendment under § 314 and to rejecting amended claims under § 112 based on 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.552(a) and 1.906(a).

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Pinkos et al 10/513,040 ADAMS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COVINGTON, RAYMOND K

1623 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 11/481,257 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Fawley 10/695,252 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BUTLER, PATRICK NEAL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Cofino et al 11/113,457 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Heninger et al 10/711,940 HOMERE 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMIN E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Bilskie et al 10/811,160 HORNER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PETERSON, KENNETH E

3725 Ex Parte Kenney et al 11/285,483 McCARTHY 103(a) LEONARD TACHNER, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

robertson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Carlucci et al 11/471,929 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KASSA, TIGABU

1624 Ex Parte Gerlach et al 10/608,520 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER WARD, PAUL V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Nightingale 10/764,495 HAHN 101/102(e) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A

2164 Ex Parte Majd et al 10/961,735 BROCKETTI 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation- Dept. 917 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

2165 Ex Parte Crucs 11/125,930 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK

2166 Ex Parte Holland et al 10/372,346 CHANG 102(e) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

See e.g., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (The claims were drawn to a disposable diaper having three fastening elements. The reference disclosed two fastening elements that could perform the same function as the three fastening elements in the claims. The court construed the claims to require three separate elements and held that the reference did not disclose a separate third fastening element, either expressly or inherently.).

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

2191 Ex Parte Sreedhar 09/925,580 BROCKETTI 102(b) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER VO, TED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Green 09/950,253 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Ando 11/401,301 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Epstein et al 09/750,500 MacDONALD 102(e) Gilman Pergament LLP EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 09/855,196 SILVERBERG 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3767 Ex Parte Mizus 11/067,729 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/058,281 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Diao et al 10/648,179 KOHUT 102(b) 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS

2183 Ex Parte Shui et al 10/374,147 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Watson, et al 10/289,492 CHEN 103(a) 103(a) Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Nakamura et al 10/669,653 DANG 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MOTSINGER, SEAN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Quintus et al 10/328,933 FETTING 103(a) 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3673 Ex Parte Mossbeck 11/329,998 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER LIU, JONATHAN


REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3725 Ex Parte 6550701 et al US RE40,042 95/000,165 SONG 112(2)/103(a) FELLOWES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. MICHILIN PROSPERITY, LTD Patent Owner, Respondent PATENT OWNER STEFAN KIRCHANSKI VENABLE LLP 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST THIRD PARTY REQUESTER BRYAN P. COLLINS PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER HONG, WILLIAM

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/071,204 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/058,246 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/058,284 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/078,358 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

1629 Ex Parte Au et al 10/807,620 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA EXAMINER ANDERSON, JAMES D

1648 Ex Parte NAUWYNCK et al 11/944,555 FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2) CLARK & ELBING LLP EXAMINER MOSHER, MARY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Brooks et al 10/059,478 COURTENAY 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TAN, ALVIN H

2179 Ex Parte Khakzadi et al 10/719,673 JEFFERY 103(a) Leo Peters LSI Logic Corporation EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Brittenham et al 10/328,873 POTHIER 102(e) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jordan et al 10/108,254 FETTING 103(a) Eddie E. Scott Assistant Laboratory Counsel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D

REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Preisach 10/752,597 HAHN 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LE, DON P

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

capon, ariad, CFMT

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Platz et al 11/536,348 ADAMS 103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1655 Ex Parte Chern et al 11/999,637 FREDMAN 112(1) Cozen O'Connor EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

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

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

In Ariad, the court found that the written description “doctrine never created a heightened requirement to provide a nucleotide-by-nucleotide recitation of the entire genus of claimed genetic material; it has always expressly permitted the disclosure of structural features common to the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Thusoo 10/662,095 ZECHER 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER BETIT, JACOB F

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/559,382 MACDONALD 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Paradigm IP Law, PC EXAMINER TRINH, TAN H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Pierson et al 11/100,145 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Pernot et al 10/580,373 BAHR 103(a) Gary M Cohen EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

3761 Ex Parte Venkitaraman et al 11/128,579 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Hall et al 10/418,925 PRATS 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/461,829 SCHEINER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

“Enablement does not require an inventor to meet lofty standards for success in the commercial marketplace. Title 35 does not require that a patent disclosure enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Leech et al 11/045,965 BARRY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DU, THUAN N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Romines et al 11/086,183 BROCKETTI 103(a) Law Office of Jim Boice EXAMINER SU, SARAH

2455 Ex Parte Rosenstock et al 10/676,744 DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R

2455 Ex Parte Rosenstock et al 10/676,746 DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Jones et al 09/967,232 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A

REHEARING

DENIED

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

Monday, October 24, 2011

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Vogt 10/456,206 COURTENAY 102(e) 102(e) MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. - Intel EXAMINER STOYNOV, STEFAN

Friday, October 21, 2011

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 10/588,487 OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN


AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/253,187 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHEN, XIAOLIANG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Estevadeordal et al 11/350,472 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP EXAMINER BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

Thursday, October 20, 2011

o'farrell, wiseman, jung, abele, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Rao et al 11/170,331 ZECHER 103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN

2161 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 11/317,216 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A

2186 Ex Parte Dunshea et al 11/006,127 BARRY 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Michaud et al 10/856,534 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L

3689 Ex Parte Kruk et al 10/279,188 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Tak et al 10/837,390 HORNER 103(a) PEACOCK MYERS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Imamatsu 10/705,437 CHEN 102(a) 102(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER YAARY, MICHAEL D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte McSwiggen et al 10/720,448 FREDMAN 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

O’Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). O’Farrell identifies two kinds of error. In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful…. In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

1633 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11/449,125 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

There is no dispute that the difference in starting material shape dictates the resulting nanoparticle shape. In the Wiseman case, the discovery of a new function did not render Wiseman’s disc brakes nonobvious, and the inherent difference in shape here is similarly insufficient. “[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11/078,735 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Cetel et al 11/284,612 TIMM 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AUSTIN, AARON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Murray 11/092,866 HOMERE 103(a) TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Karamchedu et al 10/635,184 COURTENAY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (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 . . . .”).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gillaspy et al 10/947,417 HOELTER 101/103(a) Keohane & D'Alessandro EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

Our reviewing court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) held that a claim directed to the steps of calculating and displaying was not statutory stating that “[t]his claim presents no more than the calculation of a number and display of the result, albeit in a particular format” (Id. at 908-09). Appellants’ claim 1 does not even include the displaying step recited in Abele’s rejected claim. See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test” and that “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”)

Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST Concurring WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Dossel, Donaldson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Arndt et al 10/939,803 TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Laudato et al 11/695,742 KIM 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

3688 Ex Parte Warren et al 11/557,758 PETRAVICK 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Kropf et al 10/597,847 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP EXAMINER WOLF, MEGAN YARNALL

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Mleziva et al 11/303,029 HASTINGS 112(1) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER CHRISS, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Saurer et al 10/512,275 BAHR 112(2)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) RONALD E. GREIGG GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R

As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), [a]lthough paragraph six statutorily provides that one may use means-plus-function language in a claim, one is still subject to the requirement that a claim “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Therefore, if one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.

Dossel, In re, 115 F.3d 942, 42 USPQ2d 1881 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

miller, shealy

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Gyllensten et al 10/529,447 SCHEINER 103(a) PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER THOMAS, DAVID C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Swidersky et al 11/453,922 GARRIS 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S

1787 Ex Parte Forloni et al 10/565,868 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER FREEMAN, JOHN D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Cruanes et al 11/001,363 DIXON 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER RADTKE, MARK A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/400247 DILLON 102(e)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER SHERKAT, AREZOO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Reithofer 11/498,286 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11/622,897 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K

3653 Ex Parte Vernon et al 10/699,485 McCARTHY 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER MATTHEWS, TERRELL HOWARD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/852,562 POTHIER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER CALLAHAN, PAUL E

Paper containing logic or a program is printed matter and is considered non-statutory under § 101. See In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969); see also Ex parte Shealy, 2007 WL 5211669, No. 2006-1601, at *21-22 (BPAI April 23, 2007) (informative) and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.03(a)(I)(A)
, 8th ed., Rev. 6, Sept. 2007.

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(a)

2453 Ex Parte Sen et al 10/245,476 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3745 Ex Parte 7384244 et al 90/009,815 COCKS 103(a) PATENT OWNER: TREGO, HINES & LADENHEIM, PLLC GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Mark F. Smith EXAMINER DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original EXAMINER WHITE, DWAYNE J

REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Budmiger 11/255,236 6,634,238 NAPPI 251 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER PATEL, HARSHAD R

We note that MPEP § 1414 (II)(C) states “[a]ny error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.” MPEP § 1414(II)(C) also states “[a] statement of “. . . failure to include a claim directed to . . .” and then presenting a newly added claim, would not be considered [a] sufficient “error” statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa. Such a statement would be no better than saying in the reissue oath or declaration that “this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the change made by adding new claim 10. In both cases, the error has not been identified.”

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Puri et al 12/200,211 FREDMAN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SHOMER, ISAAC

1617 Ex Parte Glenn et al 11/973,591 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BUCKLEY, AUDREA

1633 Ex Parte Zimenkov et al 11/063,223 WALSH 112(1) written description/112(1) enablement CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Ogasawara et al 10/897,409 TIMM 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN

1741 Ex Parte Park et al 11/260,585 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MINSKEY, JACOB T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Roye 10/690,674 DILLON 103(a) Walter J. Tencza Jr. EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Mirlas et al 10/286,921 KIM 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER MILEF, ELDA G

Monday, October 17, 2011

storage tech., allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes, symantec, IMS, american medical

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Squibbs et al 11/035,801 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Schrader et al 10/967,022 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M


Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed.Cir. 2003). While there is no simple test for determining when a preamble limits claim scope, we have set forth some general principles to guide that inquiry. “Generally,” we have said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809. If the preamble “is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed.Cir. 2000).

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2111.02

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

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .2181, 2183, 2184

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dijk et al 11/699,692 McKELVEY 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chane et al 10/306,752 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e)/103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Friday, October 14, 2011

transco, waldemar, lukach, gosteli, chester,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/340,288 MILLS 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Nilsson et al 10/584,246 GARRIS 103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Kaminkow 10/231,653 HORNER 101/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER HOEL, MATTHEW D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lahn et al 09/826,319 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6719434 et al MOLE-RICHARDSON CO. Requestor, Appellant v. BRUCE L. FINN Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,383 09/704,639 EASTHOM 103(a)/102(b) Fellers Snider Blankenship Baily & Tippens Third Party Requester: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL

“[T]he bottom line is that, no matter what term is used to describe a continuing application, that application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application only as to common subject matter.” Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 556(Fed. Cir. 1994). “A CIP application can be entitled to different priority dates for different claims. Claims containing any matter introduced in the CIP are accorded the filing date of the CIP application. However, matter disclosed in the parent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application.” Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . .201.11, 2107.01, 2165.01

Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 31 USPQ2d 1855 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 706.03(o)

See Application of Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969-70 (CCPA 1971) (later-filed broad range claim not supported by earlier grandparent disclosure of point in the range and anticipated by a similar disclosure in a related British patent); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (later-filed claims containing subject matter, a genus, not disclosed in foreign priority application, disclosing a subgenus of the genus claimed, not entitled to foreign priority); Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Lukach, holding that broader CIP claims in child were anticipated by the parent, which did not support the broader CIP claims).

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . .201.11, 2163, 2163.05

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

AFFIRMED


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Rizzi et al 09/876,173 FETTING 102(e) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER JANVIER, JEAN D