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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, May 9, 2013

IPXL, katz interactive, rembrandt, ekchian

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Arends et al 11740355 - (D) ZECHER 103 IBM CORPORATION ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Moore et al 11517020 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 103 VERIZON GIDADO, RASHEED

2485 Ex Parte Fukuhara et al 10835582 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP LEE, Y YOUNG

2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10337611 - (D) WHITE 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Sukhman et al 11021904 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General STAFFORD, PATRICK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Ex Parte Vu et al 10484498 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

3686 Ex Parte Koster 10702253 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP PHONGSVIRAJATI, POONSIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Harris et al 11415881 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Lewis and Roca LLP - Sony D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY

3767 Ex Parte Moberg et al 11224416 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. HALL, DEANNA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kito et al 12179803 - (D) McKONE 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BRYANT, MICHAEL C

A claim that recites a combination of two separate statutory classes of invention (under 35 U.S.C. § 101) “‘is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the ‘metes and bounds’ of protection involved’ and is ‘ambiguous and properly rejected’ under section 112, paragraph 2.’” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1550-51 (BPAI 1990)).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)
...
We conclude that claim 17, although couched in terms of a conditional statement, is directed to the actions performed by the system, rather than the capabilities of the system. Thus, claim 17 recites both a statutory machine and a statutory process. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Like the language used in the claim at issue in IPXL (‘wherein . . . the user uses’), the language used in Katz’s claims (‘wherein . . . callers digitally enter data’ and ‘wherein . . . callers provide . . . data’) is directed to user actions, not system capabilities.”); Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (data transmitting device held indefinite for reciting transmitting method step). Accordingly, claim 17 is indefinite. See IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1384.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Semerdzhiev et al 10856247 - (D) STEPHENS 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ GOFMAN, ALEX N

2176 Ex Parte Mewherter et al 10685192 - (D) HOMERE 101/112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP DEBROW, JAMES J

2179 Ex Parte Michelitsch et al 10726298 - (D) BENOIT 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LO, WEILUN

2194 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11268326 - (D) POTHIER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JORDAN, KIMBERLY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Shah 10670550 - (D) NEW 103 MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) JOO, JOSHUA

2445 Ex Parte Hind et al 10643601 - (D) PARVIS 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JOO, JOSHUA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Valley et al 11854449 - (D) BRANCH 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. LI, SHI K

2643 Ex Parte Nandagopal 11345695 - (D) CURCURI 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2659 Ex Parte Beiermeister et al 11948480 - (D) HOMERE 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. SHAH, PARAS D

2678 Ex Parte Vandenbrande et al 11421413 - (D) KRIVAK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. HOANG, PHI

2689 Ex Parte Huang 11607842 - (D) KRIVAK 112(2)/103 Paul M. Denk MORTELL, JOHN F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte JENNINGS et al 11831830 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX WILKES, ZACHARY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Nagda et al 10000121 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER CASLER, TRACI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Weil et al 10994505 - (D) TARTAL 103 Dority & Manning P.A. PINHEIRO, JASON PAUL  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Achtermann et al 11456225 - (R) HOMERE 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 2761 USHIP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Third Party Defendant-Appellee. 2012-5077 5,831,220 08/845,012 6,105,014 09/162,874 MOORE summary judgment of noninfringement Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Desmarais, LLP original DATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS ROSENMAN GIBSON, RANDY W; COSIMANO, EDWARD R

Thus, statements giving rise to a disclaimer may be made in response to a rejection over the prior art, but they may also take place in other contexts. For example, an applicant’s remarks submitted with an Information Disclosure Statement can be the basis for limiting claim scope. See Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We hold that a patent applicant’s response to a restriction requirement may be used to interpret patent claim terms or as a source of disclaimer.

No comments :