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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, May 26, 2014

pitney bowes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Hellwig et al 11957476 - (D) KIMLIN 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP CHAU, LISA N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 11839868 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 IBM Corp. (END/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. HO, RUAY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Gerber et al 12207166 - (D) KUMAR 103 AT&T Legal Department - AS VU, HOANG-CHUONG Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2843 Ex Parte Cho 12135659 - (D) KRATZ 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. LEE, BENNY T
DENIED 2491 Ex Parte Smith et al 11430126 - (D) MORGAN 112(1) Jackson Walker LLP BECHTEL, KEVIN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Margolin 11736356 - (D) GERSTENBLITH Dissenting-in-Part CAPP 103 103 JED MARGOLIN MANCHO, RONNIE M

The phrase “for safely flying an unmanned aerial vehicle in civilian airspace” does not appear to warrant significant patentable weight because it merely recites a purpose or an intended use of the system. See, e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that if “the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation” (citations omitted)).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Swalla et al 12136383 - (D) OWENS 103 GE Licensing THOMAS, CIEL P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Macchletti et al 11707328 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 BGL/Accenture - Chicago BRINKS GILSON & LIONE MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Gopal 11600894 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Anderson Gorecki & Rouille LLP MURPHY, CHARLES C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Torelli et al 11963145 - (D) GARRIS 103 ADDMG -- ST (foreign-originated only) REIDLINGER, RONALD LANCE

2828 Ex Parte Ridderbusch 12227748 - (D) HASTINGS dissenting NAGUMO 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HAGAN, SEAN P

2875 Ex Parte Freeman et al 12151925 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 OSRAM SYLVANIA INC GRAMLING, SEAN P

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 NETFLIX, INC. Requester v. MEDIA QUEUE, LLC Patent Owner Ex Parte 7389243 et al 10/771,049 95000469 - (D) SIU 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/112(2)/103 Law Office of J. Nicholas Gross, Prof. Corp. CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 SPX CORPORATION Respondent, Requester v. SÜDMO HOLDING GMBH Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,891,376 et al 12/184,725 95001834 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 102/103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC Third Party Requester: FISCH, HOFFMAN, SIGLER LLP KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original LEE, KEVIN L

No comments :