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

Thursday, April 11, 2013

IPXL, schreiber, ratti

custom search

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Itou et al 10581858 - (D) TIMM 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP LEONG, JONATHAN G

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte White et al 11213349 - (D) GARRIS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX MILLER, MICHAEL G

1761 Ex Parte Terada et al 10823654 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE-265550 DOUYON, LORNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chen et al 11874758 - (D) McKONE 101/103 IBM CORPORATION BELCHER, HERMAN A

We note that if we were to construe claim 8 to require selecting email addresses on a user computer system, the result would be a claim that impermissibly recites a method step and apparatus limitations. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v., Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

IPXL Holdings v., Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

2453 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10253283 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC NGUYEN, THU HA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Foth et al 11321589 - (D) KIM 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. HAYES, JOHN W

3688 Ex Parte Wirth et al 10277162 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Phan 10986820 - (D) WOOD dissenting SPAHN 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company PICKETT, JOHN G

A claim reciting an apparatus may be anticipated by a reference disclosing a device that includes each and every structural limitation in the claim and that is capable of performing each and every functional limitation in the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (upholding the Board’s affirmance of a rejection under section 102(b) on the basis of a finding that a device disclosed in a prior art reference was capable of performing a function which the appellant alleged to distinguish the appellant’s apparatus from the device).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114

I am persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s modification of “provid[ing] the APA with a freely movable blocking member” 17 as taught by vom Hofe would render APA unfit for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of APA. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (Emphasis added)). In Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. Id. at 811-13. This modification fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how a sealed interface was attained.

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

No comments :