SEARCH

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

lakkala, mass. inst. of tech., aristocrat

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11510386 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 VERIZON KUMAR, ANIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Telesco 11763556 - (D) WIEDER 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2843 Ex Parte HSIEH et al 12831255 - (D) WILSON 102(e) McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP CHANG, JOSEPH

2881 Ex Parte Wohlgemuth et al 12017820 - (D) BEST 102/103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

2882 Ex Parte MUENSTER et al 12906437 - (D) HASTINGS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(b) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. ARTMAN, THOMAS R

Additionally, we construe “an evaluation unit . . . that has software . . . configured to” perform various functions, as recited in independent claim 2, as a “means-plus-function” limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and conclude that the Specification’s failure to disclose an algorithm corresponding to the recited functions renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (see, e.g., Ex parte Lakkala, 2013 WL 1341108, *2 (PTAB 2013) (informative), where the PTAB held that “a processor . . . configured . . .to” perform various functions is a means-plus-function limitation). Likewise claim 1’s “carrying out a material detection” step is construed as “step-plus-function” limitation, and is similarly indefinite.

This limitation does not include the word “means,” thus a rebuttable presumption exists that this limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation. Mass. Inst. of Tech. & Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This presumption can be overcome, however, if the limitation “fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) That is the case here. ...


In light of this conclusion, we next consider whether Appellants’ written description contains corresponding structure for the “evaluation unit” limitation. Cf. Aristocrat Techs Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In computer-implemented inventions such as

the one at issue, the corresponding structure must include an “algorithm that transforms [a] general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” Id. at 1338 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)

Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2181

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Spera et al 11553546 - (D) POLLOCK 102(e)/102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago Baxter LEE, WENG WAH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Rovinski et al 12233021 - (D) MILLS dissenting-in-part JENKS 103 103 SIM & MCBURNEY PARAS JR, PETER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Fukui et al 10363039 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK WALLS, CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Kozlov et al 11830791 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FAN, SHIOW-JY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Chung et al 11767820 - (D) HANLON 102/103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP THOMAS, KIMBERLY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Deal et al 10902492 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3763 Ex Parte Van Den Bossche et al 13575028 - (D) CHERRY 103 Symbus Law Group, LLC SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3768 Ex Parte Goodwin 11012573 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte KAMPER et al 12212149 - (D) OWENS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 John A. O'Toole WILLIAMS, LELA

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lin 11680193 - (D) SMITH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC PENG, HUAWEN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
1205 Ex parte APP PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant Ex Parte 5670524 et al 08/256,319 90011068 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 112(2)/102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NAVINTA LLC CAMPELL, BRUCE R original HENLEY III, RAYMOND J

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex parte APP PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant Ex Parte 5,834,489 et al 08/851,062 90011069 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP PATENT OWNER: DLA PIPER LLP (US) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ROTHWELL. FIGG. ERNST & MANBECK. P.C. CAMPELL, BRUCE R original HENLEY III, RAYMOND J

1636 Ex parte THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION Appellant Ex Parte 6,114,148 C1 et al 08/717,294 90012334 - (D) JENKS 102 CLARK & ELBING LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original SHUMAN, JON D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 PG DRIVES TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester v. LAUTZENHISER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,426,600 et al 09/802,823 95001471 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Valenti, Hanley & Robinson, PLLC Third Party Requester: PG Drives Technology, Inc. WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original IP, SHIK LUEN PAUL

No comments :