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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, December 19, 2013

lowry, bernhart, king


custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Delvat 11480415 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP BUI, THUY T

2183 Ex Parte GSCHWIND 11762137 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. TREAT, WILLIAM M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Kamins et al 11584148 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, LONG

2899 Ex Parte Ruelke et al 11082156 - (D) NAGUMO 102 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Amerson Law Firm, PLLC SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11814689 - (D) GREEN 101/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. POON, PETER M

3657 Ex Parte Russell 11837892 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 LORD CORPORATION WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952548 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 Conley Rose, P.C. KIM,CHONG R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Jung et al 12055204 - (D) COURTENAY 101/112(1)/102/obviousness-type double patenting IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Lesieur 11904835 - (D) HASTINGS 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC KOLB, NATHANIEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Shastry 11964232 - (D) LORIN 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP FIELDS,BENJAMIN S
AFFIRMED 3626 Ex Parte Gombar 11083438 - (D) KIM 101/103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3679 Ex Parte Laible et al 12085642 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Liccardo 11466476 - (D) BAHR 103 Graham Curtin, P.A. GARNER, WERNER G

Citing In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994), Appellant argues that the principle of non-functional descriptive material (i.e., printed matter) is not applicable to the present case because, in the present application, “whatever can be considered printed matter is generated and processed by a computer.” App. Br. 13-14. However, Lowry does not, as Appellant suggests, stand for the proposition that the “printed matter” cases have no application in situations involving computer systems and data stored on a memory. In the Lowry case, the Federal Circuit determined that Lowry’s data structures, a plurality of attribute data objects (ADOs), were not analogous to printed matter because they perform a function and “provide increased efficiency in computer operations.” Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1580, 1584. In determining that the data structures were not analogous to printed matter, the court noted that “Lowry’s ADOs do not represent merely underlying data in a database.” Id. at 1583; see also id. (“Indeed, Lowry does not seek to patent the Attributive data model in the abstract. Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database. Rather, Lowry's data structures impose a physical organization on the data.”). In the claims before us, the recited rendering of each of the characters “in a uniform representative of a different manual labor trade” is merely the display of underlying graphics data stored in a memory. This uniform data does not functionally affect the operation of the memory or the processor. As noted by the Examiner, the graphics that “decorate the characters” are “purely cosmetic” and do not change the underlying fighting game at all. Ans. 14. Stated differently, this graphics data is “useful and intelligible only to the human mind,” and thus cannot impart patentability to Appellant’s claimed gaming method. Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583 (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)); see also King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (confirming that the rationale underlying the printed matter cases extends to method claims as well).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 2: 469; 6: 282, 346, 392, 698; 10: 1139

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

3724 Ex Parte Roefer et al 11986901 - (D) JUNG 103 Michael J. Bendel, Esq. FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

No comments :