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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, April 10, 2014

eplus

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Mann et al 11147582 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY SHIAU, SHEN C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte FROSIEN et al 12133298 - (D) PAK 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Ex Parte Cullen et al 11351835 - (D) KIM 103 WINSTEAD PC MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
AFFIRMED 1726 Ex Parte Pajerski 11259451 - (D) KALAN 103 THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION GRESO, AARON J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Praveena et al 11677096 - (D) FETTING 103 TERADATA CORPORATION CHANG, JEFFREY

2168 Ex Parte Quine 11955420 - (D) McCOLLUM Concurring MILLS 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

I look to case law precedent for guidance in interpreting the “determining . . . whether” language of the second step of claim 1. In ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 513 (Fed. Cir. 2012) the Court reviewed a claim that recited:

26. A method comprising the steps of: maintaining at least two product catalogs on a database containing data relating to items associated with the respective sources; 
selecting the product catalogs to search; 
searching for matching items among the selected product catalogs; building a requisition using data relating to selected matching items and their associated source(s); 
processing the requisition to generate one or more purchase orders for the selected matching items; and determining whether a selected matching item is available in inventory.

The Federal Circuit held in that case that a

[J]ury was free to rely on the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “determining” and conclude that a user who prompts a vendor to report whether a particular item is available “determines” whether that item is available—much in the same way, for example, that one may call and speak to a sales representative at a local store to determine whether a certain item is in stock.

Id. at 520 (emphasis added.) Similarly, I interpret the “determining . . . whether” language in second step of Claim 1 before us, as a client or user’s processing device or computer prompting a request to the USPS ACS or other address database to determine whether an address change is available. I broadly interpret the “pattern” in claim 1, consistent with the Appellant’s Specification (FF13), as encompassing checking for an address change at the time of each mailing.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Kaminsky et al 11970635 - (D) FETTING 101/103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP HUYNH, DUNG B.

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Patil et al 12256419 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 HONEYWELL/IFL BRYANT, MICHAEL C

2865 Ex Parte Drummy et al 11757564 - (D) NAGUMO 112(1)/103 Ostrolenk Faber Gerb & Soffen, LLP (Olympus NDT) SUAREZ, FELIX E

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2735 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC Patent Owner, Appellants 90011898 5,986,570 08/922,491 HOMERE 103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC For Third Party Requester: BUCKINGHAM, DOOLITTLE & BURROUGHS, LLP GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original DALENCOURT, YVES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex parte HUBBELL INCORPORATED Appellant 90012086 7323639 11/548,047 STRAUSS 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. For Third Party Requester: O’SHEA GETZ PC WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original PATEL, DHIRUBHAI R

No comments :