SEARCH

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

Thursday, November 27, 2014

oakley, mouttet

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Tehrani et al 11553942 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, NGON BINH

2676 Ex Parte Cardells et al 12239997 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte BECK et al 12323477 - (D) BEST 103 Keysight Technologies, Inc. C/O CPA Global HWANG, TIMOTHY

Claim construction is a necessary predicate to an obviousness determination.  Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

2896 Ex Parte Birau et al 11189259 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER SUCH, MATTHEW W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Morinville 11003557 - (D) BAYAT 103 LAW OFFICES OF MARK L. BERRIER NGUYEN, TAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Domschot 11944843 - (D) WARNER 103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. JENNISON, BRIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Streyl 11878786 - (D) BEST 103 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. PURINTON, BROOKE J

Obviousness is determined by considering what combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a routineer. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1324, 1332‒33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Muldoon 11550691 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP DURAN, ARTHUR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Baumann 10698215 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 102/103 HUGH P. GORTLER SHAKERI, HADI

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Bielski et al 10800031 - (D) JENKS 103 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. WAX, ROBERT A

1627 Ex Parte Xie et al 11804802 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PIHONAK, SARAH

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Bernhard et al 12442189 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Ostrolenk Faber LLP LIN, KUANG Y

1755 Ex Parte Tachibana et al 12446699 - (D) DERRICK 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC GOLDEN, ANDREW J

1763 Ex Parte Neff et al 12758656 - (D) ROESEL 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF SE LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1787 Ex Parte Song et al 12001319 - (D) SMITH 103 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Liao et al 11552135 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP LEIBOVICH, YAIR

2161 Ex Parte Trepess et al 10723086 - (D) MacDONALD 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DAYE, CHELCIE L

2166 Ex Parte Pini 11134819 - (D) Per Curiam 103 Baker Botts LLP LO, ANN J

2169 Ex Parte Carey et al 11421269 - (D) DANG 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC ALLEN, BRITTANY N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Xia 11892922 - (D) POTHIER 103 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. COSTIN, JEREMY M

2471 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11103017 - (D) DANG 112(1)/103 SPRINT ADHAMI, MOHAMMAD SAJID

2488 Ex Parte Hannuksela et al 10844676 - (D) DANG 103/ obviousness-type double patenting Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP PE, GEEPY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Chipchase et al 10518871 - (D) FINK 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC SYED, NABIL H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Frieder et al 11450739 - (D) HUME 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Petersen & Erickson LIANG, VEI CHUNG

2818 Ex Parte Nitta et al 13096757 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. EICHELBURG FOX, BRANDON C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Curley 13041785 - (D) WORTH 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC KRAMER, DEAN J

3688 Ex Parte Arasu et al 12347931 - (D) MOORE 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CAO, VINCENT M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Fischell et al 11625400 - (D) MILLS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Goldszmidt et al 11848405 - (D) BEAMER 102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG CALLAHAN, PAUL E

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of K.G. MOTORS, Inc. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7334846 et al 95001125 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 WILMERHALE/DC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP REIP, DAVID OWEN original STORMER, RUSSELL D

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

donaldson, kemco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Owhadi 10165863 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Drudis et al 11413550 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEALON, WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Jendrusch 12287241 - (D) JESCHKE 103 DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP ROGERS, LAKIYA G

For a prior art element to satisfy a means-plus-function limitation, as permitted by former 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the prior art element must either be the same as the disclosed structure or be an “equivalent[] thereof.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Two structures are “equivalent” within the meaning of the statute if they “perform the identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added).

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01 2114

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2103 2183 2184

3744 Ex Parte Umeno 10529154 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. ZEC, FILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Turner et al 11522177 - (D) JENKS 103 102/103 Wells St. John P.S. AMIN, MUSTAFA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2479 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11241684 - (D) ENGELS 112(1) 103 FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT) CEHIC, KENAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Marini 11696412 - (D) WOODS 102/103 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY CHIN-SHUE, ALVIN CONSTANTINE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Yassinzadeh 10821633 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1) 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI DANG, PHONG SON H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Klose et al 11009361 - (D) ADAMS 103 Jason D. Voight CHONG, YONG SOO

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Eger et al 11662618 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. VALDEZ, DEVE E

1773 Ex Parte Houser et al 12572807 - (D) PAK 102/103 NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY LUDLOW, JAN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Azagury et al 12062211 - (D) SMITH 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DENNISON, JERRY B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Kim 13502481 - (D) DANG 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. SHAH, PRIYANK J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Jung et al 11586439 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/112(2) 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC REYES, REGINALD R

3626 Ex Parte Allard et al 11968239 - (D) WORTH 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. WINSTON III, EDWARD B

3662 Ex Parte MARKYVECH 11854344 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Schneider 12135685 - (D) LaVIER 112(1) 103 SJM/AFD - DYKEMA c/o Kite & Key, LLC VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A

3742 Ex Parte Obersteiner 11997760 - (D) WARNER 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS STAPLETON, ERIC S

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED, Requester v. DATAMIZE, LLC and PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellants Ex Parte 6658418 et al 10/157,417 95002018 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 HolzerIPLaw, PC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON PC (DC) ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original ALI, MOHAMMAD

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

alice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10933987 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Dewitt Ross & Stevens SC PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte GELINAS et al 12429655 - (D) BUI 102 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. KIM, KENNETH S

2178 Ex Parte Garrett et al 11679597 - (D) PAULRAJ 112(2)/102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC VAUGHN, GREGORY J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Massetti 12133780 - (D) OWENS 103 LATHROP & GAGE LLP WRIGHT, TUCKER J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Meyers et al 12709657 - (D) BROWN 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG NGUYEN, NGA X

3695 Ex Parte Shaw et al 11031287 - (D) LORIN 102 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP OYEBISI, OJO O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte DENZLER 12891431 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

3761 Ex Parte Matson et al 12239103 - (D) ADAMS 103 Covidien MARCETICH, ADAM M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Espelien 11581526 - (D) CHUNG 112(1)/103 112(1)/103 PATENTS+TMS, P.C. HU, JENSEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Bozionek et al 11587202 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION KHAN, AFTAB N

2486 Ex Parte Gordon 11412669 - (D) KUMAR 103 102 BGL/Broadcom RAO, ANAND SHASHIKANT

Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Vest 12267642 - (D) PAK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N

1741 Ex Parte Fournier et al 10989416 - (D) HASTINGS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LAZORCIK, JASON L

1742 Ex Parte Kirk et al 11759442 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1747 Ex Parte Marchini et al 12311432 - (D) BEST 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

1771 Ex Parte Garner et al 11560489 - (D) KRATZ 103 INFINEUM USA L.P. PO, MING CHEUNG

1788 Ex Parte Yakovleva et al 11870544 - (D) KRATZ 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FERRE, ALEXANDRE F

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2138 Ex Parte Allen et al 11953201 - (D) CHUNG 103 Winstead, P.C. KROFCHECK, MICHAEL C

2184 Ex Parte Pai et al 10736125 - (D) HOMERE 102 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation WONG, TITUS

2194 Ex Parte Radzykewycz et al 11361806 - (D) DANG 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP ANYA, CHARLES E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Campagna et al 12050605 - (D) FINK 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. CHOWDHURY, SUMAIYA A

2426 Ex Parte Holtz et al 10208810 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102/103 Thomson Licensing LLC PENG, HSIUNGFEI

2453 Ex Parte Bell et al 11755490 - (D) HOMERE 112(2) 102/103 (SimDesk) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD NGUYEN, THUONG

2492 Ex Parte Fadili et al 11507551 - (D) HOFF 103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC PAN, PEILIANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Nelson 11553131 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

2657 Ex Parte Suriyanarayanan 11913313 - (D) HOFF 101/102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PULLIAS, JESSE SCOTT

2683 Ex Parte Devaux 11660501 - (D) FRAHM 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SAMSON, SARA B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte TSENG et al 12120618 - (D) ROESEL 102/103 WPAT, PC KING, JOSHUA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Wyker 11242268 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, P.C. DURAN, ARTHUR D

3627 Ex Parte Allocca et al 10916772 - (D) BAYAT 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC ROJAS, HAJIME S

3632 Ex Parte Love 12019253 - (D) BROWNE 103 FREUDENBERG-NOK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP SMITH, NKEISHA

3653 Ex Parte Wang et al 12019512 - (D) HILL 102/103 DENTONS US LLP RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. Requester v. AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,778,595 et al 12/015,320 95001782 - (D) BRANCH 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. Third Party Requester: Kenyon & Kenyon LLP BASEHOAR, ADAM L original WASHINGTON, ERIKA ALISE

Monday, November 24, 2014

packard, Phillips, hammack, cohn

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Imanaga et al 11937599 - (D) BEST 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP GATEWOOD, DANIEL S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Anerousis et al 12172540 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2164 Ex Parte Ghosh 12367200 - (D) WINSOR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Maass 11660724 - (D) FRAHM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LAU, HOI CHING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Ichiyama 11783932 - (D) TIMM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GORDON, MATTHEW E

2894 Ex Parte Schaefer et al 12398726 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/112(2)/102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. MONDT, JOHANNES P

2897 Ex Parte YANG et al 12104526 - (D) TIMM 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C PRASAD, NEIL R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Zopf 11890604 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3674 Ex Parte Durairajan et al 12329163 - (D) BAYAT 103 SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC. SAYRE, JAMES G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chila et al 12099352 - (D) CALVE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - General Electric GOYAL, ARUN

3742 Ex Parte Christopher et al 11502865 - (D) JUNG 103 FLETCHER YODER MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

3763 Ex Parte Mozdzierz et al 12434864 - (D) ADAMS 103 Covidien LP LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1791 Ex Parte Creighton et al 12730739 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

2497 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11787409 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. ARMOUCHE, HADI S

2814 Ex Parte Furst et al 11792619 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) YOUNG & THOMPSON SKYLES, TIFNEY L

The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. This portion of the statute requires the claims “be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standard is not one of exact precision. What one must determine is whether the language is as precise as the subject matter permits given the circumstances. Id.

Precision in claiming is not only dependent on the claim language itself; it is dependent on the description of the invention in the Specification. Although claims are not to be limited to specific embodiments set forth in the specification when it is does not appear that an applicant desired the claims to be so limited, the specification is the single best guide to determining the meaning of the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).


Claims that lack precise referents in the specification and require elaborate explanations extraneous to both the specification and the claims do not meet the standard of precision required by the statute. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–82 (CCPA 1970). In fact, inconsistent use or unclear use of the terms in the specification can even cause a claim that appears clear on its face to become unclear and indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1001 (CCPA 1971) (holding claims indefinite because the claims were, in calling for sealing an oxide surface with an alkali silicate to obtain an “opaque appearance,” inconsistent with the specification which defined an “opaque finish” as a flat-appearing finish which is not obtained when an alkali metal silicate is used as a sealant.).


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

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1384, 166 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1970) 2173.05(e)

Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) 2173.03


3711 Ex Parte Cerpok 13082559 - (D) BROWN 103 102/103 ROBERT A. PARSONS GRAHAM, MARK S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Godber et al 12611022 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD WATTS, JENNA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Sayal 10873556 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CASANOVA, JORGE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524052 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A

2457 Ex Parte Bae et al 10778838 - (D) FISHMAN 102 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Anttalainen et al 10595140 - (D) FRAHM 103 ERICSSON INC. MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2672 Ex Parte Price et al 12231123 - (D) POLLOCK 102 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

2683 Ex Parte Foth et al 11503446 - (D) HUGHES 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, AN T

2689 Ex Parte Hjulberg 12102424 - (D) FRAHM 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC BEE, ANDREW W.

3628 Ex Parte Moulckers 11103852 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. CLARK, DAVID J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Isserow et al 11974401 - (D) WOODS 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Gearhart Law LLC ISLAM, SYED A

3664 Ex Parte Scott et al 11786296 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2) 112(1) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD MANCHO, RONNIE M

3681 Ex Parte Oesterling 11864204 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. LI, SUN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte SCHERMEIER et al 12061894 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC YOUNG, RACHEL T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Eronen et al 11845964 - (D) DANG 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex parte CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6600175 et al 90010940 - (D) BUI 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON For Third Party Requester: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. KIELIN, ERIK J

Friday, November 21, 2014

merck2, kao

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Bose et al 12172637 - (D) LORIN 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ROSEN, ELIZABETH H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Carrato et al 12330821 - (D) LORIN 103 IBM (END-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP KONERU, SUJAY

3656 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12076233 - (D) GOODSON 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC CHARLES, MARCUS

3676 Ex Parte Lancaster et al 12054462 - (D) HOSKINS 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY WALLACE, KIPP CHARLES

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Soltys 11479991 - (D) HILL 102/103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC HOANG, BACH V

3745 Ex Parte Devore et al 12050408 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

3751 Ex Parte CHASE et al 12258479 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 CRANE, LAUREN ASHLEY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Barleben et al 11791349 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC O DONNELL, LUCAS J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Schaeffer 10984416 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 112(1) BGL/Cook - Chicago LOUIS, RICHARD G

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kiefer-Liptak et al 12781083 - (D) HASTINGS 102 PPG Industries, Inc. EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI

1791 Ex Parte Massey et al 11707713 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (rejecting “obvious to try” argument where the prior art disclosed a “multitude of effective combinations” that did not “render any particular formulation less obvious” and where the claimed composition was “used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art” and affirming obviousness of composition selected from among more than 1200 possible compositions disclosed in patent). ...

Cf. In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Maloney's express teachings render the claimed controlled release oxymorphone formulation obvious, and the claimed ‘food effect’ adds nothing of patentable consequence.”); see also Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985).


Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a) 2123 2144.05 2144.08

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011) MPEP § 2111.05 2153.02

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Semerdzhiev et al 11322802 - (D) SHIANG 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP SWIFT, CHARLES M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Crayford 11830823 - (D) HUME 101/102/103 Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy VU, NGOC K

2435 Ex Parte Covington et al 11317879 - (D) SHIANG 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. SCHWARTZ, DARREN B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Katpelly et al 12327848 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/102 Concert Technology Corporation LE, TOAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Kulkarni et al 12233019 - (D) GUIJT 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Cavanagh et al 11693869 - (D) WORTH 112(1)/112(2) 102 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR BAYS, MARIE D

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (R) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC WARDEN, JILL ALICE

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 SKC Kolon PI, Inc. v. Kaneka Corporation Patent Owner and Appellant Requester  Ex Parte 6746639 et al 09/953,077 95001709 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1) 112(1)/102/103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP original Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione JOHNSON, JERRY D original WOODWARD, ANA LUCRECIA

Thursday, November 20, 2014

novo, Impax, hiniker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Sang et al 10589199 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP SAHA, BIJAY S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Yun 11672571 - (D) ADAMS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Andrews Kurth LLP SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M

3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 11965883 - (D) JESCHKE 103 112(1) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Henning et al 12571493 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG ZIMMER, MARC S

1765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12380892 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated SALAMON, PETER A

“In order to anticipate, a prior art disclosure must also be enabling, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. The standard for enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). While section 112 states that the specification must enable one skilled in the art to ‘use’ the invention, “section 102 makes no such requirement as to an anticipatory disclosure . . . . Rather, anticipation only requires that those suggestions be enabled to one of skill in the art.” “Whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon [the] underlying factual findings.” Id (internal citations omitted.)

It has also been held that “proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.” Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Rather, the proper issue is whether the . . . patent is enabling in the sense that it describes the claimed invention sufficiently to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention.” Id. at 1383.


Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed Cir. 2006) 2121 2122 2152.02(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Kano et al 11881479 - (D) BOUCHER 102/103 Anne Vachon Dougherty CALLE, ANGEL J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte Hunt et al 12138917 - (D) BEAMER 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON QUIETT, CARRAMAH J

2666 Ex Parte Hohmann et al 10490453 - (D) FRAHM 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI

See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Claim 1 does not contain limitations requiring the reduction of wiring between the display and display controller on a smart card. In fact, claim 1 does not recite any wiring at all.

Hiniker Co., In re, 150 F.3d 1362, 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2103 2242 2258 2258.01 2642

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Kulas 12580236 - (D) GARRIS 102 CHARLES J. KULAS MAI, HUY KIM