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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, March 29, 2013

donaldson, aristocrat, WMS, lindberg, sasse, cont'l paper bag

11976246

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte McCormick et al 11613766 - (D) SMITH 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC MOHADDES, LADAN

1772 Ex Parte Strack et al 11178037 - (D) PAK 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY NGUYEN, TAM M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Landers et al 11470825 - (D) SMITH 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Redel et al 11298779 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Oesterling et al 11206957 - (D) REIMERS 112(2)/103 103 Dierker & Associates, P.C. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Supp. Ans. 3-43 (citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[I]f 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.”)). For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338.

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

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Liebermann 10718023 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. ELISCA, PIERRE E

3742 Ex Parte Foster et al 11693143 - (D) CAPP 103 102/103 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Main) TRAN, THIEN S

3765 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11627792 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Michael J. Fitzpatrick ANDERSON, AMBER R

3773 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 11775079 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Fetissova et al 11611701 - (D) SCHEINER 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY MELLER, MICHAEL V

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Fernihough et al 11869048 - (D) WARREN 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1715 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10691319 - (D) SCHAFER 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1761 Ex Parte Trevino et al 12338014 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

1761 Ex Parte Trueman et al 11820613 - (D) SMITH 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DIGGS, TANISHA

1765 Ex Parte Kurth et al 11042972 - (D) HOUSEL 103 112(1) PRICE HENEVELD LLP COONEY, JOHN M

1765 Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11508772 - (D) GARRIS 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA

1784 Ex Parte Morita et al 11976246 - (D) LORIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LANGMAN, JONATHAN C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Smilowitz et al 11483441 - (D) DILLON 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE LLP HOPE, DARRIN

2173 Ex Parte McLean et al 11560224 - (D) DILLON 103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE HOPE, DARRIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Farr et al 10831034 - (D) SMITH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C

2442 Ex Parte Jung et al 10816364 - (D) ANDERSON 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SURVILLO, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Moreb 11260437 - (D) HUGHES 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC CAMARGO, MARLY S.B.

The record reflects that it is common sense that a surveillance audio/video system be portable. See In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 735 (CCPA 1952) (Portability of a claimed device is insufficient to patentably distinguish the device over an otherwise old (known) device unless there are new or unexpected results.).

Lindberg, In re, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) 2144.04

2695 Ex Parte Kim et al 11038028 - (D) WARD 112(1)/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP GIESY, ADAM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Dai 11068225 - (D) WARD 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Akhmeteli et al 11517915 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. KREINER, MICHAEL B

In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980) (when the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable, and the appellant must rebut this presumption with a preponderance of evidence).

Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980) 716.07, 2121, 2121.02

3664 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11051383 - (D) ASTORINO 103 ABB Inc. MANCHO, RONNIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Beck et al 11407714 - (D) GREENHUT 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

It has long been understood that invention is not confined to the particular form or mode described. See, e.g., Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908).

No comments :