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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

sullivan, rishoi, otto, ludtke, yanush, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/594,148 GREEN dissenting FREDMAN 101/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SEHARASEYON, JEGATHEESAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/478,401 COLAIANNI 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

1723 Ex Parte Thielert 10/520,853 HANLON 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1727 Ex Parte Gao et al 11/106,225 COLAIANNI 112(2)/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

“[W]hen an applicant puts forth relevant evidence . . . the Board must consider such evidence.” In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1734 Ex Parte Irie et al 10/244,010 COLAIANNI 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1761 Ex Parte Greene et al 11/427,944 COLAIANNI 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER AHVAZI, BIJAN

1789 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN et al 11/388,857 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) Annette M. Frawley, Attorney General Mills EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/982,560 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2186 Ex Parte Nevill 10/781,867 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Boudreau et al 10/318,116 MORGAN 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte NISHIMURA et al 11/844,182 HUGHES 102(e) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Vega et al 10/697,010 DANG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

2628 Ex Parte LAMPING et al 09/124,805 STEPHENS 102(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Gore et al 11/426,677 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Hazama 09/817,123 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

3764 Ex Parte Loyd et al 11/322,443 SAINDON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Kazi et al 10/376,902 HOMERE 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER PARDO, THUY N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/903,121 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, VINH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Matos 10/841,326 SPAHN 112(2)/102(b)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lizio et al 10/564,096 ADAMS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1638 Ex Parte Hillebrand et al 10/593,181 PRATS 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Link 1742 Ex Parte Benavitz et al 11/757,143 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H

1745 Ex Parte Harding et al 11/787,260 GUEST concurring TORCZON 103(a) The Jackson Patent Group EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

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

1798 Ex Parte Polat et al 10/740,261 GUEST 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Vilalta et al 09/906,168 COURTENAY 112(1)/101/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”).

2167 Ex Parte Bergholz 11/222,881 GONSALVES 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Washino 10/418,341 DANG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2453 Ex Parte Issa 11/234,493 DANG 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Toyozawa et al 10/541,092 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Santurkar et al 11/244,572 DANG 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER TAN, VIBOL

2855 Ex Parte Meinlschmidt et al 10/381,038 DANG 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Ledger et al 11/549,354 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER PHAN, HAU VAN

3635 Ex Parte Baratuci et al 11/305,041 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/490,165 BARRETT 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3754 Ex Parte Dux et al 10/149,988 SPAHN 102(b) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NICOLAS, FREDERICK C

3788 Ex Parte Mitten et al 11/025,743 ASTORINO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

gray, davis, norian, sensonics

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 10/426,501 DROESCH 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

2163 Ex Parte Meiresonne 09/938,163 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, MERILYN P

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Kregel 12/099,930 DROESCH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Alam et al 11/767,574 KIM 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

Appellant is their own lexicographer, and by using the transitional phrase “consist of,” Appellant has made a conscious choice to exclude systems that gather information from resources other than those listed. See In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 521 (CCPA 1931). While there are two exceptions to such exclusions, neither are applicable here. See Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (impurities are not excluded); Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (items unrelated to the group are not excluded).

Gray, In re, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

Davis, Ex parte, 80 USPQ 448 (Bd. App. 1948).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 70 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . 2111.03

3643 Ex Parte Grimaldi 11/175,769 ASTORINO 103(a) Mitchell D. Bittman EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Rathsack et al 10/409,285 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

To use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction is “an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

3784 Ex Parte Choi 10/683,600 SPAHN 103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Graham et al 10/278,763 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) SOMMER BARNARD PC EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Shumarayev et al 11/006,420 STEPHENS 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER WHITE, DYLAN C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/453,689 SAINDON Dissenting McCARTHY 103(a)/102(b) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3684 Ex Parte Martignoni 11/789,331 KIM 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Scott P. Zimmerman, PLLC - Others EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Strauser 11/672,784 GREENHUT 103(a) 103(a) LARSON AND LARSON EXAMINER YIP, JACK

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,773 GARRIS 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pilu et al 10/868,368 EASTHOM 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2173 Ex Parte Cowan et al 11/313,903 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Bandholz et al 11/008,811 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Nakao 11/143,576 DILLON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER FISCHER, MARK L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Bawendi et al 10/958,659 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

2829 Ex Parte Lim et al 10/664,982 HAHN 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HA T

2893 Ex Parte Farlow et al 11/409,298 STEPHENS 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Nagao 10/965,846 CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COPPOLA, JACOB C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3784 Ex Parte Najewicz 11/437,003 KOHUT 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D

Monday, November 28, 2011

clement, mostafazadeh, north american container, clement, ariad

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/341,526 MILLS 103(a) MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Tamura et al 11/783,590 PRATS 251/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

The recapture rule “prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468.

Application of the recapture rule is a three step process. . . . The first step is to determine whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims. . . . [A] reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader with respect to the modified limitation. . . . Next, the court must determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to surrendered subject matter. . . . To determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection. . . . [In] the third step of the recapture analysis . . . the court must determine whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue claim.

In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

“In discussing this third step, it is important to distinguish among the original claims (i.e., the claims before the surrender), the patented claims (i.e., the claims allowed after surrender), and the reissue claims.” Id. Thus, “recapture may be avoided under this final step of the analysis if the reissue claims "materially narrow" the claims relative to the original claims such that full or substantial recapture of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution is avoided.” Id. (quoting N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

However, “if the reissue claim is as broad as or broader [than the canceled or amended claim] in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection, but narrower in another aspect completely unrelated to the rejection, the recapture rule bars the claim . . . .” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470.

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02

North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Szymanski et al 10/947,077 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH


In effect, Appellants’ Specification and claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, covering all potential joints/linkages and sensor configurations later invented and determined to fall within the claims’ functional boundaries. This is not sufficient to satisfy the description requirement. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (stating that a sufficient description of a genus requires disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus to permit one of skill in the art to “‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus”).

Thursday, November 24, 2011

tec air

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Bard et al 11/159,412 MILLS 102(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Steins 11/300,006 SPAHN 102(b) Karl M. Steins Steins & Associates EXAMINER OLSZEWSKI, JOHN

3673 Ex Parte Hollander 11/701,980 KAUFFMAN 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

Gzybowski’s flexible bag type container, when modified as proposed by the Examiner, could be opened by an adult, thwarting Gzybowski’s purpose of providing a tamperproof container, and rendering Gzybowski’s container unsuitable for its intended purpose. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious.).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Haugaard 10/570,764 KAUFFMAN 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Puri et al 10/191,892 ZECHER 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

busche

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Kruse 11/446,933 SMITH 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

1765 Ex Parte Harrower et al 11/183,113 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) CRAIG W. RODDY HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES EXAMINER FIGUEROA, JOHN J

1773 Ex Parte Swanson et al 11/026,678 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER EXAMINER CHORBAJI, MONZER R

1773 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/835,101 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting Lin & Associates EXAMINER LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A

1791 Ex Parte Ikari et al 11/515,730 WARREN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER OSELE, MARK A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Myers et al 11/067,181 SAINDON 103(a) HUGH P. GORTLER EXAMINER JEN, MINGJEN

3664 Ex Parte Provost et al 11/407,000 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) HUGH P. GORTLER EXAMINER JEN, MINGJEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Lobbins et al 11/562,042 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Haynes et al 11/588,953 SMITH 103(a)/112(1) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA GlobalEXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1746 Ex Parte Hayes et al 11/594,522 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SQUALLS, MARGARET

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schofield 11/260,062 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Elstone et al 11/103,143 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Walter J. Tencza Jr. EXAMINER HICKS, ROBERT J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3762 Ex Parte 7236821 et al INNERPULSE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION Patent Owner 95/000,330 10/079,056 COCKS 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: AARON L. PARKER, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNLAP, L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BRAD D. PEDERSEN, ESQ. PATTERSON THUENTE CHRISTENSEN PEDERSEN, P.A. original EXAMINER GETZOW, SCOTT M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART & REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

3765 Ex Parte 7159280 et al PRECISION COMB WORKS, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MARRINER IMPORT EXPORT & FALLERS INTERNATIONAL LTD. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,356 10/969,261 DELMENDO 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: LARRY G. BROWN CUENOT, FORSYTHE & KIMEXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER SUTTON, ANDREW W

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Larder et al 11/803,541 GRIMES 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER MUMMERT, STEPHANIE KANE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Buckanin et al 11/183,004 TIMM 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1727 Ex Parte Kocha et al 11/172,504 TIMM 103(a) CARY W. BROOKS General Motors Corporation EXAMINER ROE, CLAIRE LOUISE

1729 Ex Parte Meltser et al 10/982,304 SMITH 112(2)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH

1763 Ex Parte Fregonese 11/573,695 WARREN 103(a) PARFOMAK, ANDREW N. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PA EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1763 Ex Parte Yamane et al 10/593,633 SMITH 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

1765 Ex Parte Hager et al 11/473,685 SMITH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Jensen et al 11/190,179 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) INVENSYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

2179 Ex Parte Darty et al 10/854,132 DILLON 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

2167 Ex Parte Deubel et al 11/111,508 JEFFERY 101/102(b) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

In short, Appellants’ amendment to the Specification—without a corresponding claim amendment—falls short of overcoming the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 16. See id. (noting that adding the term “non-transitory” to a claim drawn to computer readable medium that covers both transitory and nontransitory embodiments can avoid a rejection under § 101). Accord Ex parte Busche, No. 2009-007718, 2010 WL 5184640, at *5 (BPAI 2010) (nonprecedential).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/749,089 KRIVAK 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER HUYNH, SON P

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Omi et al 10/732,511 JEFFERY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WARREN, MATTHEW E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Sellers et al 09/909,439 PETRAVICK 103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Hansen 10/915,274 ADAMS 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER PALENIK, JEFFREY T

1628 Ex Parte Johal 10/371,730 ADAMS 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

1633 Ex Parte Binette et al 11/463,714 SCHEINER 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Maus 10/763,027 HANLON 102(b) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Kirmse et al 11/948,255 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Goldstein et al 10/691,928 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Hoshino 10/558,038 PAK 103(a) 103(a) DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. EXAMINER CHAU, LINDA N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Casion 11/304,026 DANG 102(b) 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6619168 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG and ZUND AMERICA, IN C. Requester, Appellant v. I-CUT, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,355 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) CC Patent Owner: JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. Third Party Requestor: JAMES F. BOYLE BOYLE FREDRICKSON SC EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Gillis et al 10/922,239 PRATS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1628 Ex Parte Pappas et al 12/351,942 ADAMS 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Maeda et al 10/905,048 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Huang et al 10/709,006 DANG 112(1)/103(a) JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE EXAMINER MOTSINGER, SEAN T

2627 Ex Parte Moscovitch 10/143,497 RUGGIERO 103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Michels et al 11/649,085 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E

2885 Ex Parte Larsen et al 11/608,779 MORGAN 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER MAY, ROBERT J

Monday, November 21, 2011

SNQ, exxon chem

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Dresher 11/293,199 SAINDON 103(a) TAIYO CORPORATION EXAMINER
RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,619 KIM 112(2)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keskiniva et al 10/563,821 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Rakib 09/898,728 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Jurmain et al 10/387,792 BAHR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SHERRILL LAW OFFICES EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3711 Ex Parte 6623381 et al ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,444 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: THE TOP-FLITE GOLF COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Third-Party Requester: MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN

For ex parte reexaminations, the USPTO has clarified the procedure for seeking review of issues pertaining to substantial new question of patentability. See Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 36357-58 (Dep’t of Commerce, June 25, 2010) (hereinafter “Notice”) (delegating the authority to review issues related to the Examiner's determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who may further delegate this authority to a panel of Administrative Patent Judges deciding the appeal in the ex parte reexamination proceeding).

The Notice, however, explicitly states that the delegation of review authority provided for review of an Examiner’s SNQ determination in ex parte reexaminations does not apply to inter partes reexaminations. See Notice, 75 Fed. Reg. at 36,358 (“The procedure set forth in this notice does not apply to inter partes reexamination proceedings. A determination by the USPTO in an inter partes reexamination either that no SNQ has been raised or that a reference raises a SNQ is final and non-appealable.”).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Wietfeldt et al 11/808,305 TIMM 103(a) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

A composition is a mixture of substances that contains the specified ingredients at any time from the moment at which the ingredients are mixed together. See Exxon Chem. Pats. Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir 1995).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte de Gruil 11/857,492 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ROJAS, HAJIME S

3644 Ex Parte Huynh 10/112,815 KAUFFMAN 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG

Friday, November 18, 2011

anderson, motorola

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Valiante 10/762,873 GRIMES 103(a) NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS INC. EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

1632 Ex Parte Nycz et al 11/048,064 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Medtronic EXAMINER WILSON, MICHAEL C

1657 Ex Parte Shah et al 11/122,172 GREEN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Sarkisian et al 11/390,778 HANLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU ANH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Idicula et al 10/648,749 WINSOR 102(e)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Ohmura et al 10/235,428 SPAHN 103(a) ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC EXAMINER MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6565008 et al Inter Partes KINGPAK TECH. INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. ORIENT SEMICONDUCTOR ELECTRONICS, LTD. Requestor, Respondent 95/000,099 EASTHOM concurring TORCZON 314(a)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP Third Party Requester: Benjamin J. Hauptman Lowe Hauptman & Berner, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER PITTS, HAROLD I

See Application of Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973) (“The question . . . is not whether ‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is support in the specification for employment of the term in a claim; is the concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”)

Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Sirinyan et al 10/613,819 SCHEINER 103(a) BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Mahdi et al 11/261,955 OWENS 103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1761 Ex Parte McClung 10/333,101 GARRIS 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1762 Ex Parte Thies 10/769,210 GUEST concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part SMITH 112(2)/101/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI

1764 Ex Parte Carpentier et al 10/992,563 WALSH 103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER KHAN, AMINA S

1784 Ex Parte Saisho et al 10/543,150 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Harris et al 11/440,056 JEFFERY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH G


2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2432 Ex Parte Silhavy et al 10/887,340 POTHIER 102(b)/103(a) Patent Law Works/Progress EXAMINER ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2447 Ex Parte Patrick et al 10/873,685 SMITH 103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JEAN GILLES, JUDE

2469 Ex Parte Hofstaedter et al 11/099,602 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Zahnen et al 11/381,012 HASTINGS 103(a) ADDMG - 27975 EXAMINER VU, HIEN D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Kirsch 09/970,772 PETRAVICK 103(a) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER FADOK, MARK A

“[T]here is no requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention.” Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

3663 Ex Parte Hoogeveen 11/009,804 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. EXAMINER KEITH, JACK W

Thursday, November 17, 2011

ahlert, zurko

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/620,223 WALSH 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HAMA, JOANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Gavin et al 10/868,729 CRAWFORD 102(e) KING & SPALDING EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Henkel 11/134,113 GREENHUT 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

The Examiner may take official notice of facts “beyond the record which, while not generally notorious, are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.” In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (citation omitted). However,

[a]ssertions of technical facts in areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent art and the appellant given, in the Patent Office, the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assertion or the notoriety or repute of the cited reference.

Id. (citation omitted). Where, as here, the Examiner relies on some unknown authority to resolve a contested core factual issue, Appellant is effectively deprived of this opportunity. App. Br. 8-9. This results in a record that is insulated from meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.03

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Schmitt et al 10/582,451 FRANKLIN 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

1103 Ex Parte 5884039 et al Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61, LLC 90/009,016 07/941,826 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith, LLP Third Party Requester: Tawni L. Wilhelm Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H originally MARY R. BONZAGNI EXAMINER VANOY, TIMOTHY C
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/799,904 McKELVEY 102(b)/non-statutory obviousness double patenting JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A

1781 Ex Parte Thorengaard et al 11/028,684 TIMM 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Mueller et al 10/416,966 CHANG 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

2193 Ex Parte Duranton et al 10/522,463 CHANG 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) DLA PIPER LLP (US) EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H

2193 Ex Parte Mourra 10/906,592 SMITH 102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER VU, TUAN A

2196 Ex Parte Korall et al 10/284,235 FRAHM 101/103(a) OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP EXAMINER CAO, DIEM K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Frohberg et al 11/199,445 KRIVAK Concurring BAUMEISTER 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER MALEK, MALIHEH