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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

howard, dealertrack

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Sadamitsu et al 10/985,880 KRATZ 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Richardson et al 10/507,862 KRIVAK 103(a) Joseph S. Tripoli Thomson Licensing Inc. EXAMINER VU, THONG H

2174 Ex Parte Mendel et al 11/177,100 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Schedivy 10/645,048 COURTENAY 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/893,325 JEFFERY 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WILLIS, RANDAL L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lindfors et al 11/658,542 GRIMES 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER CLERKLEY, DANIELLE A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Gazdic et al 10/119,663 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N

3721 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/189,798 CLARKE 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

3737 Ex Parte Maschke et al 11/489,878 PRATS 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M

3742 Ex Parte Kottilingam et al 11/036,991 McCARTHY 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

3752 Ex Parte Burghaus et al 11/439,660 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Hedman 10/371,826 FRANKLIN 103(a) 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER CHORBAJI, MONZER R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Cross et al 10/323,272 DANG 102(e) 102(e) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER RIAD, AMINE

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Seeger et al 10/886,910 Per Curiam 102(e) 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ROSARIO, DENNIS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Heruth et al 10/873,764 SCHEINER 103(a) 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3771 Ex Parte Pidcock 11/274,361 ASTORINO 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) DESIGN IP, P.C. EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

The Examiner also determines that “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flexible massaging element of one piece.” Ans. 5 (citing to Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1725 Ex Parte 7049546 et al THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,205 PER CURIAM 112(2)/112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 112(2)/112(1) GEORGE R. CORRIGAN CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER SHAW, CLIFFORD C

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte INGVOLDSTAD 12/566,038 BONILLA 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER KUMAR, SHAILENDRA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Liu et al 11/940,539 SMITH 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D

1762 Ex Parte Teschner 10/565,701 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER MULCAHY, PETER D

1767 Ex Parte Li 11/447,581 PER CURIAM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1772 Ex Parte JUENKE et al 11/531,994 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) (Weatherford) Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP EXAMINER GONZALEZ, MADELINE

1775 Ex Parte Morton et al 11/351,024 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) INFINEUM USA L.P. EXAMINER HINES, LATOSHA D

1782 Ex Parte Shilling et al 10/931,534 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

1787 Ex Parte Abe et al 12/226,042 McKELVEY 103(a)/112(2) Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/648,140 COURTENAY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LEWIS, ALICIA M

2179 Ex Parte Conally et al 10/400,051 PER CURIUM 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2181 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10/225,329 WEINBERG 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Molaro et al 10/402,167 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Jonathan O. Owens HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP EXAMINER GEE, JASON KAI YIN

2439 Ex Parte Gimenez 10/367,657 THOMAS 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SIMITOSKI, MICHAEL J

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Hayem et al 10/733,861 HOMERE 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER CASCA, FRED A

2618 Ex Parte Biundo et al 10/392,562 BAUMEISTER 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU

2618 Ex Parte Luers 10/562,348 MORGAN 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

2627 Ex Parte Duong 10/867,330 MORGAN 101/112(1)/112(2) Henri Duong EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

Moreover, claim 7 is so manifestly abstract as to preempt the fundamental concept or idea of recording printing materials in recording materials, thus foreclosing innovation in this area. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 164439 at *16, No. 2009-1566, slip op. at *35 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim 7, being manifestly abstract, is therefore not patentable subject matter. See Dealertrack, ___ F.3d at ___, 2012 WL 164439 at *14, No. 2009-1566, slip op. at *30.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Cabral et al 10/989,639 JEFFERY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER PHAM, THANHHA S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte MacLennan 11/534,131 KAUFFMAN 103(a) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. EXAMINER EPPS, TODD MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/935,389 PRATS 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. Richard A. Arrett EXAMINER SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3735 Ex Parte Grace 11/436,258 FRANKLIN 103(a) RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, SAMUEL G

3737 Ex Parte Hsieh et al 10/243,057 MILLS 102(e)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC EXAMINER Lauritzen, Amanda

Friday, February 24, 2012

falko-gunter

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Mishra 11/494,166 McCOLLUM 112(1) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER SAUCIER, SANDRA E

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Gorthy et al 09/942,834 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Nair 11/582,069 STEPHENS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Song 11/716,256 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER HAYES, KRISTEN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hueil et al 11/711,979 CALVE 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3731 Ex Parte Tischler et al 11/753,829 FREDMAN 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILES, JONATHAN WADE

3732 Ex Parte Wyllie et al 11/536,724 COCKS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K

3733 Ex Parte Jacobs et al 10/746,749 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

3739 Ex Parte MULIER et al 11/966,769 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Chiang et al 11/155,288 MILLS 112(1) 112(1) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/MannKind Corporation EXAMINER HALVORSON, MARK

(1) [E]xamples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description[;] (2) the written description standard may be met . . . even where actual reduction to practice of an invention is absent; and (3) there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure. Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Che et al 11/542,354 SIU 102(b) 102(b) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER WONG, KIN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Whitman 10/127,310 FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LEUBECKER, JOHN P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte De Simone 11/576,130 ADAMS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Koivisto et al 11/007,028 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

2174 Ex Parte Lyudovyk et al 11/374,444 WINSOR 102(e)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Watanabe 10/398,907 RUGGIERO 102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER LIN, WEN TAI

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Krishnan 10/858,578 MORGAN 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER SAINT CYR, LEONARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Gertner 11/142,599 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Schutz 10/977,616 CALVE 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER FRANCIS, FAYE


REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Watts et al 10/837,106 DIXON 102(e)/102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 Ex Parte 6,868,220 et al PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,412 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H

Thursday, February 23, 2012

thorner

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Takigawa et al 11/707,008 WALSH 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Evans et al 11/823,993 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1763 Ex Parte Krause et al 12/009,873 SMITH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1778 Ex Parte Rosenblatt et al 11/625,397 SMITH 103(a) JOEL I. ROSENBLATT EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte LaFontaine 10/333,655 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Ferri et al 10/718,064 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, ELLEN C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Nyland 10/848,829 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) Merchant & Gould P.C. EXAMINER POON, PETER M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Howland et al 10/145,840 WALSH 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Takigawa et al 11/383,889 SMITH 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) LAUBSCHER & LAUBSCHER, P.C. EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Brunedal et al 11/907,965 BARRETT 103(a) 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Warkentine et al 11/752,105 FREDMAN 101/102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HOBAN, MELISSA A

3774 Ex Parte LAZZARA et al 09/237,605 HORNER 103(a) 103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B


REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2603 Ex Parte 5388101 et al Ex parte EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,383 TURNER 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER CHIN, WELLINGTON

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2172 Ex Parte 6,253,216 et al Ex parte Tele-Publishing, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,792 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER KINDRED, ALFORD W


AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Fisch 10/381,225 MILLS 103(a) Ira J Schaefer , Esq. Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Blacker et al NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 11/482,103 SMITH 103(a) EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1774 Ex Parte McCLANAHAN et al 11/954,281 SMITH 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER JANCA, ANDREW JOSEPH

1777 Ex Parte Beplate 10/387,854 SMITH 103(a) Thompson E. Fehr EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

3723 Ex Parte Dilger et al 10/858,654 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER REDDING, DAVID A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Witecha 11/043,179 PER CURIAM 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY

And even assuming that were so, this mere description of Appellant’s preferred embodiment would not be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of the plain meaning of “mailer” given above.

See
Thorner v. Sony Computer, No. 2011-1114, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.”).

3764 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/651,746 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3764 Ex Parte Wheeler et al 11/800,343 ADAMS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

wertheim, kropa, net moneyin, advanced display, seversky, arkley

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte ASAOKA 12/174,973 PAK 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEYSON, JOSEPH S

1747 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12/277,883 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/245,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

1773 Ex Parte Ricci et al 10/581,964 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER SAKELARIS, SALLY A

Based on these facts, we determine that the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim that provides completeness to the claim and thus must be considered a limitation of the claim. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976) (citing Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951)).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

1783 Ex Parte Conner et al 11/891,433 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KHATRI, PRASHANT J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/926,548 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) Roland W. Norris Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,429 ASTORINO 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3734 Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/867,498 WALSH 103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3737 Ex Parte Fymat et al 11/524,866 GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

3782 Ex Parte Katchko et al 11/107,340 GREENHUT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/135,045 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

In an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.’” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (brackets in original)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-88.

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 Ex Parte 6192347 et al Ex parte Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,556 09/134,451 TURNER 101/102(e) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D

To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed.Cir.2000), citing In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973). A “mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything.” Id. at 674 (emphasis in original).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Chinea et al 11/189,139 McKELVEY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1715 Ex Parte Wojtaszek et al 12/050,709 GARRIS 103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1716 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/673,376 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1731 Ex Parte Shore et al 11/142,580 COLAIANNI 103(a) ENGELHARD CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

Citing to In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972), Appellants’ arguments seem to take issue with the picking and choosing needed to arrive at the claimed invention (Reply Br. 3). However, this line of argument appears to improperly treat the rejection as an anticipation rejection. The rejection on appeal is under § 103 and is based on whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. The court in Arkley recognized that picking and choosing is entirely proper in an obviousness rejection. Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-588.

1745 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/580,219 KRATZ 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1772 Ex Parte DiMagno et al 10/890,588 PER CURIAM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,780 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,810 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Majumdar et al 11/000,695 POTHIER 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Zeng et al 10/635,526 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, TED M

2617 Ex Parte Chiang et al 10/136,002 Per Curiam 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Doucette et al 11/275,747 BARRETT 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P

Monday, February 20, 2012

ortho-mcneil, pall corp, eiselstein, telecordia, intel

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Goel et al 10/824,725 HOMERE 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Herron et al 10/888,883 JEFFERY 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte McClellan 11/361,422 FRANKLIN 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3761 Ex Parte Swerev et al 11/444,714 PRATS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

3765 Ex Parte Fukunishi et al 10/565,836 SAINDON 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Perkins et al 10/085,927 JEFFERY 103(a) 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Fetherolf 10/086,908 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Holman et al 11/020,540 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/541,523 PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

“The use of the word "about," avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, “the word „about‟ does not have a universal meaning in patent claims[;]” rather, “the meaning depends on the technological facts of the particular case.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The meaning of the word "about" is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art.”).

Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 1302.01

1623 Ex Parte Hirofuji et al 10/536,397 MILLS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/007,225 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

“[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to an ordinary artisan.” Telcordia Techs., Inc. v Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the internal circuitry of an electronic device need not be disclosed in the specification if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to build and modify the device) (internal citation omitted)).

Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1537, 65 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . 2181

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Petri 10/901,596 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T

2174 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/013,239 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER KE, PENG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tate et al 09/737,050 JEFFERY 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

2482 Ex Parte Sievers et al 10/798,519 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 10/449,789 HAHN 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B

2618 Ex Parte Durand et al 11/102,954 Per Curiam 102(e)/103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras LLP EXAMINER HANNON, CHRISTIAN A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/428,607 PER CURIAM 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/059,836 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/921,715 FREDMAN 103(a) Robert L. McDowell EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/084,568 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting ROBERT L. McDOWELL EXAMINER HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES

Friday, February 17, 2012

aoyama, golight, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, larson, default proof, prater, biomedino, donaldson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A

1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M

3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a)
103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H

“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .

“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.


Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P

1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H

Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181

Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that

[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P

Thursday, February 16, 2012

brummer, orthokinetics

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Pierpont et al 10/295,518 KRATZ 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN

1746 Ex Parte Girshovich et al 11/197,114 HASTINGS 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Dornbusch et al 10/691,212 SAADAT 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

Finally, we observe that the Examiner’s reliance (see Ans. 20-26) on the decision in Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), is misplaced. The Board found in Brummer that because the evidence of record showed no known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what size rider a particular bicycle was “designed for” and whether a particular bicycle was covered by that claim. Id. at 1655. However, determining the definiteness of a claim depends on the facts involved. In the present appeal, the facts are closer to what was at issue in Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986), where the front leg portion of a wheelchair was so dimensioned as to be insertable between the doorframe of an automobile and the seat thereof. Id. at 1575. Appellants’ claim 1 recites the separation between the first and the second terminal pairs to be such that an input-to-output isolation attenuation therebetween is “not less than a first stopband attenuation of the first external filter.” As such, when the external filter is selected, its first stopband attenuation would also be known. Therefore, it does not render the claim indefinite, but merely gives the scope of the claim some breadth.

Brummer, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(b)

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Yamashita 11/040,182 SAINDON 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, MONICA L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Swenson et al 10/786,725 ADAMS 103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3739 Ex Parte Long 10/986,602 WALSH 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3785 Ex Parte Zaffetti et al 11/281,137 BROWN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER LEO, LEONARD R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Smith 10/544,154 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M

1623 Ex Parte Hilfinger 10/972,729 GRIMES 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1627 Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/079,089 GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Dahlmann et al 11/535,335 GARRIS 103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

1727 Ex Parte Kejha et al 10/516,986 PER CURIAM 103(a) Zachary T Wobensmith III EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Even et al 10/362,382 FRAHM 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Jhingan 10/687,896 FETTING 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER CLARK, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/295,280 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

3761 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/837,251 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN