SEARCH

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

Friday, August 29, 2014

thompson smithkline, gardner

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Chu et al 11885237 - (D) MILLS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Bar-Gadda 10819591 - (D) HANLON 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 EDWARD S. WRIGHT WONG, EDNA

See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) (economic factors alone may provide motivation for the proposed combination).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Cheng et al 11622698 - (D) SAADAT 102 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN TRAN, TONGOC

2491 Ex Parte Barsness et al 12145181 - (D) FISCHETTI 102(e)/103 IBM CORPORATION GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte KOTRLA et al 12205955 - (D) OWENS 102/103 VERIZON HAGAN, SEAN P

2833 Ex Parte Zak 12108454 - (D) OWENS 103 JUAN ZAK FIGUEROA, FELIX O

2833 Ex Parte Fink et al 10583216 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Michael M Rickin FISHMAN, MARINA

2853 Ex Parte Kosydar et al 12164653 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY SHAH, MANISH S

2854 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11136142 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(2)/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. CULLER, JILL E

2887 Ex Parte Combs et al 10745096 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. MAI, THIEN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Gottlieb 10981116 - (D) LORIN 103 Nuance Communications, Inc. c/o Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

3654 Ex Parte Hagleitner 12365490 - (D) KERINS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (breadth is not indefiniteness); see also In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 74 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2112

3685 Ex Parte Wetherell 11246657 - (D) LORIN 102(e)/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP / GOOGLE KIM, STEVEN S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Seger 11486884 - (D) BAHR 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. JENNISON, BRIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2654 Ex Parte Bayley et al 11027064 - (D) POLLOCK 102e)/103 102(e)/103 PLANTRONICS, INC. OLANIRAN, FATIMAT O

2671 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10644468 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP DEMETER, HILINA K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Gang et al 10535203 - (D) HOELTER 102(e) 102(e)/103 AOL Inc./Finnegan ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Sharma et al 12263432 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NORMAN, MARC E

3752 Ex Parte Chan et al 11788394 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE JONAITIS, JUSTIN M

AFFIRMED 
1674 Ex Parte Zernicka-Goetz et al 11933153 - (D) MILLS 103 DLA PIPER US LLP Lisa A. Haile, J.D., Ph.D. GIBBS, TERRA C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Voss et al 10858656 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BASF CORPORATION HANDAL, KAITY V

1735 Ex Parte Weber 12215191 - (D) ROESEL 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. IP, SIKYIN

1767 Ex Parte Konishi et al 12095369 - (D) GARRIS 103 Cantor Colburn LLP MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA

1772 Ex Parte Sechrist et al 12333379 - (D) KRATZ obviousness-type double patenting HONEYWELL/UOP NGUYEN, TAM M

1774 Ex Parte Ikemizu 12162149 - (D) SMITH 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP GRIFFIN, WALTER DEAN

1775 Ex Parte WEAVER et al 12371042 - (D) DERRICK 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. HURST, JONATHAN M

1789 Ex Parte Kuhn et al 11429082 - (D) HANLON 103 GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION COLE, ELIZABETH M

1797 Ex Parte Thrier 12698362 - (D) HANLON 102/103 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP ADAMS, MICHELLE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte POWER et al 12139748 - (D) STEPHENS 102(e) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BLACK, LINH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte MacDonald et al 12031393 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2425 Ex Parte Dawson et al 11726558 - (D) HUGHES 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES CHEN, CAI Y

2452 Ex Parte Nastacio 11391653 - (D) CALVE 103 Jordan IP Law (IBM-RSW) TRAN, NAM T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Nathans et al 11847853 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. LIU, CHIA-Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Leidel et al 12031470 - (D) LaVIER 103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG HUYNH, PHONG KY

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex parte DuPont Nutrition BioSciences ApS Appellant Ex Parte 8163315 et al 13/085,567 90020026 - (D) TIMM 102/103 Vedder Price P.C. Third Party Requestor: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP DIAMOND, ALAN D original WONG, LESLIE A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex parte Walker Digital, LLC Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7593033 et al 11/424,738 90009999 - (D) EVANS 102/103 Ascenda Law Group, PC For Third Party Requester: VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. AHMED, SALMAN original RAO, ANAND SHASHIKANT

Thursday, August 28, 2014

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Aldred et al 12287957 - (D) SMITH 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(b) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP BEKKER, KELLY JO

1793 Ex Parte Aldred et al 11524977 - (D) SMITH 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP KING, FELICIA C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Vardhan et al 11535420 - (D) DANG 103 Siemens Corporation BLACK, LINH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 12190024 - (D) McKEOWN 103 GARLICK & MARKISON ZHONG, JUN FEI

2453 Ex Parte Schneider 10710362 - (D) BAHR 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

2483 Ex Parte Kerofsky 11089647 - (D) EVANS 103 Gerald W. Maliszewski HOLDER, ANNER N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Oikawa et al 12423563 - (D) HOUSEL 103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz ENAD, CHRISTINE A

2836 Ex Parte Jerg et al 12721590 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION HOANG, ANN THI

2881 Ex Parte Chen et al 11809644 - (D) FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. SMYTH, ANDREW P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Derscheid 12407352 - (D) GUIJT 103 DEERE & COMPANY GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS

3744 Ex Parte MOHEBBI et al 11852355 - (D) KINDER concurring SCHAFER 103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 ZEC, FILIP

AFFIRMED–IN–PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11855544 - (D) JEFFERY 102(e) 102(e) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC VO, CECILE H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Camp et al 12169143 - (D) COURTENAY 102 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON FANG, PAKEE

2649 Ex Parte McClendon 11177565 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION JAIN, ANKUR

2668 Ex Parte Lee et al 11182432 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PARK, SOO JIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Hyde et al 11906995 - (D) CHUNG 103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CHNG, JOY POH AI

3626 Ex Parte Jung et al 11986986 - (D) CHUNG 103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Constellation Law Group, PLLC COLEMAN, CHARLES P.

3654 Ex Parte Izu et al 12214690 - (D) MOORE 103 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER LIU, HENRY Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Salo et al 10703398 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Shoji et al 11662503 - (D) ROESEL 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EMPIE, NATHAN H

1722 Ex Parte Feldmann 12607612 - (D) HASTINGS 102 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J

1747 Ex Parte Dunlap et al 11625000 - (D) DERRICK 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1791 Ex Parte Cox et al 12532670 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting UNILEVER PATENT GROUP BEKKER, KELLY JO

1791 Ex Parte Cox et al 11699601 - (D) SMITH 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Roohparvar 11601107 - (D) DANG 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA MCMAHON, DANIEL F

2122 Ex Parte Gruen et al 12017026 - (D) SHAW 101/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG RIFKIN, BEN M

2168 Ex Parte Jung et al 11986966 - (D) CHUNG 112(2)/102(e) 101/102(e)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Constellation Law Group, PLLC LY, CHEYNE D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Fan et al 11847017 - (D) DANG 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G SALCE, JASON P

2457 Ex Parte Aaltonen et al 10688430 - (D) BAHR 112(1)/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LAI, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Yeatts et al 11322636 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1) 102(e)/103 AT&T Legal Department - MB KASRAIAN, ALLAHYAR

2642 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11615326 - (D) HORVATH 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 11163161 - (D) McCARTHY 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON, BRIAN W

3763 Ex Parte Dilorenzo 11706630 - (D) JENKS 102/103 Cyberonics, Inc. OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3769 Ex Parte Tice 11189332 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

nerwin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Valianatos et al 12538228 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 E INK CORPORATION POURBOHLOUL, SARIRA CAMILLA

1785 Ex Parte Tong et al 12262068 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RUMMEL, IAN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Van Den Boomen et al 12065541 - (D) THOMAS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BULLOCK, JOSHUA

2184 Ex Parte Overby et al 11939521 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/NVIDIA WONG, TITUS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Sherstad 12204607 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP WILEY, DANIEL J

Additionally, the Examiner finds the disclosure of (a) to be obvious “because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements requires only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichmann, 168 USPQ 177, 179.”
...
Appellant does not dispute the welding teachings of Strome but instead contends that “the Examiner relies SOLELY on [the] citation to Nerwin v. Erlichman.”
...
MPEP § 2144 provides guidance that “[w]hen considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule.” “So, for example, automating a manual activity, making portable, making separable, reversing or duplicating parts, or purifying an old product may form the basis of a rejection. However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand” (emphasis added). “Simply stating the principle (e.g., ‘art recognized equivalent,’ ‘structural similarity’) without providing an explanation of its applicability to the facts of the case at hand is generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
...
Regardless, the Examiner’s stated rationale seems to be predicated upon the use of multiple pins and, regarding claim 7, the Examiner’s sole basis of multiple pins being obvious in light of Zen’s single pin is a reliance on Nerwin, whose use as a per se rule is improper.

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Kilroy 11318915 - (D) SHAW 103 IBM Lotus & Rational SW c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP ADAMS, CHARLES D

2168 Ex Parte Hewitt et al 11410301 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 AOL Inc./Finnegan TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte KRETZ et al 11551312 - (D) KIM 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Seger et al 11855344 - (D) KOHUT 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON GEORGEWILL, OPIRIBO

2644 Ex Parte Fox et al 11180220 - (D) DILLON 103 Workman Nydegger EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Ming et al 12050718 - (D) PAK 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 103 Chen Yoshimura LLP MARINI, MATTHEW G

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,924,323 B2 et al 90012673 - (D) STRAUSS 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. For Third Party Requester: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P. GE, YUZHEN

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

chitayat, nautilus, energizer holdings, porter

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Fanning 12790502 - (D) GARRIS 103 BGL/Detroit YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 11277200 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC JAMAL, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Laub 12139075 - (D) WORTH 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN

3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11261443 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A GHAND, JENNIFER LEIGH-STEWAR

3773 Ex Parte Feinberg 10674653 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1)/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

3774 Ex Parte Chuter et al 12338020 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H BGL/Cook - Chicago

The Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive. Patent drawings are not necessarily intended to show accurate relative dimensions and “arguments based on mere measurement of the drawings [are] of little value.” In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d 475, 478 (CCPA 1969).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 12064477 - (D) MacDONALD 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. HSU, ALPUS

2493 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11733354 - (D) McKEOWN 103 101 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LE, CHAU D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pass 11505658 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MOORE, KARLA A

1734 Ex Parte Ylimäinen 12301262 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

1744 Ex Parte LUBURIC 12793748 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP LEE, EDMUND H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Zemlok et al 12189834 - (D) WARNER 102(e) Covidien LP WEEKS, GLORIA R

3741 Ex Parte Norris et al 12131280 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M

Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

We further note that if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”); Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (BPAI 1992) (“controlled stream of fluid” provided reasonable antecedent basis for “the controlled fluid”). For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1−20 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) 608.01(n) 2173.05(e) 2173.05(f) 2173.05(q)

3775 Ex Parte de Villiers et al 11829056 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Patent Owner/Appellant v. PERMOBIL, INC. Requester/Respondent Ex Parte 8181992 et al 95002355 - (D) MARTIN 103 Baker & Hostetler LLP Third Party: WILMERHALE / DC ENGLISH, PETER C original BROWN, DREW J

Monday, August 25, 2014

boon

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Fourcand 11735604 - (D) DILLON 103 102/103 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. HOANG, THAI D

An adequate traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Raymond et al 11531592 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

1792 Ex Parte Raymond et al 11531585 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Benco et al 11818070 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Volpe and Koenig, P.C. and Wi-LAN Inc. BEHNAMIAN, SHAHRIAR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1797 LEICA BIOSYSTEMS MELBOURNE PARTY LTD. Requester and Respondent v. DAKO DENMARK A/S Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,553,672 et al 11/803,545 95001671 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: LEICA BIOSYSTEMS RICHMOND, INC. DAWSON, GLENN K original GORDON, BRIAN R

Friday, August 22, 2014

applied materials, aller, cybersettle

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Fry 12554563 - (D) ROESEL 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Mckinney et al 11993301 - (D) Per Curiam 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BULLOCK, JOSHUA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Heitmeyer et al 11234422 - (D) HOELTER 112(2)/102 102/103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP MCCARRY JR, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Viola et al 12427796 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 102 Covidien LP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

3721 Ex Parte Beardsley et al 12427794 - (D) ASTORINO 103 103 Covidien LP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Ji 12562355 - (D) ROESEL 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (Servilla Whitney, LLC) TISCHLER, FRANCES

In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming obviousness rejection where “there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties”); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

1765 Ex Parte Schadt et al 11392714 - (D) OWENS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LISTVOYB, GREGORY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lehner et al 11172002 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS

2189 Ex Parte Park 12016702 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC RUIZ, ARACELIS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Guo et al 11744531 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HOPKINS, MATTHEW A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Boss et al 11170441 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

We also stated that this use of the broadest reasonable construction in construing conditional steps in a method claim was in accord with the view of our reviewing court in Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished), which though designated as unpublished, can be found on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit website.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

alice, bancorp

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Kahl 10513652 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C

We find that claims 1–8, 11, and 13–25 are directed to a mathematical algorithm for calculating the modular inverse of a value, i.e., an abstract idea. The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that fundamental concepts, by themselves, are ineligible abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___, No. 13-298, slip op. 1 at 10 (June 19, 2014). We recognize that independent claims 1, 14, and 18 conclude with an intended use clause “used for a cryptographic application” that applies the mathematical calculation steps to a specific application. A claim may be patent eligible if it includes additional inventive features such that the claim scope does not solely capture the abstract idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. ___, slip op. at 6. A claim reciting an abstract idea, however, does not become eligible “merely by adding the words ‘apply it.’” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

2442 Ex Parte Basham et al 12039496 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. AILES, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Bastani et al 12253133 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(b)/112(f) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUFFMAN, JULIAN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Wood 11609096 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 103 VERIZON ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Ebata et al 12314154 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP KRYLOVA, IRINA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Kleine et al 11493932 - (D) McKEOWN 103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

keller, datamize, musgrave, Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11173702 - (D) FRAHM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2182 Ex Parte Brenner et al 11751277 - (D) CHEN 103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hamalainen 10546641 - (D) MORGAN 103 FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) SU, SARAH

2443 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12342691 - (D) SHIANG 102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BELANI, KISHIN G

2492 Ex Parte Rasanen 11156479 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11096851 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Mohrmann, III 11465637 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP CHOUDHURY, ZAHID

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f) 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Reignoux et al 11629893 - (D) OWENS 103 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte PELTON 11860115 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich Manelli Selter PLLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Specifically, the scope of the claimed “prescribed presentation preference” is not defined and thus, appears to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Application of Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. 1352, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (1970) (noting ‘[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite’). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” (emphasis added)).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
...

“When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is “especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 2111.01 2143.01 2258

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Pauly et al 11317464 - (D) FINK 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. SANDERS, STEPHEN

2457 Ex Parte Leermakers 10993391 - (D) SHAW 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SALL, EL HADJI MALICK

2463 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854417 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KHIRODHAR, MAHARISHI V

2491 Ex Parte SAWICKI et al 12143134 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Stevens Law Group BECHTEL, KEVIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Baardse et al 12052610 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 Siemens Corporation GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

2644 Ex Parte Naim et al 11274015 - (D) COURTENAY 103 SPRINT HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Phillips, bristol-myers2, continental can, kansas jack, goodyear dental

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Gaither et al 11554672 - (D) SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Todd 11626730 - (D) WORTH 103 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP TRINH, MICHAEL MANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Kelly 10737087 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP LAVINDER, JACK W

Appellant disagrees and references Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for stating “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” App. Br. 21 (additional citations omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. “Accordingly, the Examiner's allegation that the meaning could change over time is irrelevant, as the meaning ‘at the time of invention’ determines plain meaning.” App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 3.

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305873 - (D) SAADAT 103 William E. Curry PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Scrimsher et al 11497156 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PLECHA, THADDEUS J

2473 Ex Parte Meier et al 11600492 - (D) WINSOR 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. HUQ, OBAIDUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Rooyen 11010486 - (D) JEFFERY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHEN, JUNPENG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12182531 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BERHANU, SAMUEL

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8056975 et al 12/573,484 90009987 - (D) GREENHUT 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. Third Party Requester: Law Office of John W. Harbst ENGLISH, PETER C original NELSON JR, MILTON

“[U]nhelpful evidence [does not] diminish[] the strength of the more persuasive forms of evidence.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13-1306, 18 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014). The burden of showing commercial success attributable to the features of the claim does not impose a burden to demonstrate that no other conceivable factors contributed to that success. App. Br. 31-36; contra Ans. 8. “It is not necessary that [] the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed.Cir. 1991).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01

We are unaware of any requirement that the invention be the only successful product in its market niche or the most successful. App. Br. 38 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 602,679 (D. Del. 2013) aff’d at Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc ., supra (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014)(“ We agree with the factual findings on secondary considerations and find no clear error”). Evidence of growth in market share, like evidence of total market share, is relevant to the commercial success inquiry. See e.g., Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F. 2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A growing market share demonstrates that Appellant was “displac[ing] other devices which had previously been employed for analogous uses.” See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 US 486, 495-6 (1877).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent v. FRACTUS, S.A. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7528782 et al 11/780,932 95001455 - (D) MOORE 102(e)/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original PHAN, THO GIA