SEARCH

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

Thursday, May 14, 2015

mayne, catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 2145

1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA

1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C

2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J

Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”

Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A

No comments :