SEARCH

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

Monday, August 31, 2015

galderma

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Garcia-Rill 11716218 - (D) JENKS 103 MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM CARTER, KENDRA D

1644 Ex Parte Keler et al 10903191 - (D) JENKS 103 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP KIM, YUNSOO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Mathews et al 12784589 - (D) McGRAW 103 VERIZON TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Ho 12973737 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC ALBERTALLI, BRIAN LOUIS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Porte et al 12307886 - (D) REIMERS 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

3763 Ex Parte Norman et al 12196777 - (D) HARLOW 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA, PLLC MDT SURGICAL TECHNOLOGIES MATTERS BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10719007 - (D) PRATS 103 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis BFF/Durect Corporation GHALI, ISIS A D

As to commercially available sufentanil compositions (Br. 17), our reviewing court has explained that “[n]othing in the statute or our case law requires [the proponent] to prove obviousness by starting with a prior art commercial embodiment and then providing motivation to alter that commercial embodiment.” Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Waldron et al 11499044 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP EBRAHIM, NABILA G

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Mariani et al 12448304 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

1785 Ex Parte Rivkin et al 12427534 - (D) SMITH 112(1) 112(1)/102/103 Hollingsworth Davis BERNATZ, KEVIN M

1788 Ex Parte Wagner et al 11516956 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP CHANG, VICTOR S

Gates’ stated preference for a fluid matrix does not teach away from an elastomer or soft plastic matrix, which are expressly disclosed alternatives. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2740 (U.S. 2014) (“A reference does not teach away, . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.”)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 Ex Parte Best 12199523 - (D) DIXON 101 102/103 CRGO LAW PILLAI, NAMITHA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte KAN et al 11876110 - (D) FINK 103 RGIP LLC KURIEN, CHRISTEN A

2467 Ex Parte Lopes 12466005 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP GOOGLE SHARMA, GAUTAM

2497 Ex Parte Da Silva Neto 10518545 - (D) HAAPALA 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC WRIGHT, BRYAN F

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Annampedu et al 12328024 - (D) BAER 103 LSI CORPORATION NEGRON, DANIELL L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte McKay et al 11873905 - (D) FETTING 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3626 Ex Parte St. Clair et al 11493922 - (D) LORIN 103 BLANK ROME LLP REYES, REGINALD R

3683 Ex Parte Ross et al 12201986 - (D) FETTING 101/102/103 41.50 101/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD NGUYEN, NGA B

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2863 STRAVA, INC., MAPMYFITNESS, INC., and FITNESSKEEPER, INC. Requester, v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6701271 et al 09/859,827 95002337 - (D) McKEOWN 112(2)/102/103 102/103 41.77 103 Maschoff Brennan FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC NGUYEN, MINH T original BUI, BRYAN

Friday, August 28, 2015

antor media, amgen3, baldwin graphic, interactive gift

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte BARRETT et al 12646672 - (D) STEPINA 103 Sheridan Ross PC MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Ali et al 13105869 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 A PATENT LAWYER, PLC MORGAN, EILEEN P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Hara 12281348 - (D) HANLON 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP USELDING, JOHN E

We understand the Appellant to be arguing that Okamoto does not provide an enabling disclosure for a composition that satisfies the formula in paragraph 4 of Okamoto (i.e., α > 1). In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A prior art reference cannot anticipate a claimed invention ‘if the allegedly anticipatory disclosures cited as prior art are not enabled.’” (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). The Appellant, not the Examiner, bears the burden of showing nonenablement. Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1289.

1767 Ex Parte Shuler et al 12395578 - (D) McKELVEY 103 41.50 103 Fina Technology, Inc. BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Jackson 10898212 - (D) GREEN 112(2)/101 George G. Jackson BUSS, BENJAMIN J

2163 Ex Parte Seager et al 12774301 - (D) TROCK 103 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION HO, BINH VAN

2168 Ex Parte Taylor 12048619 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. TRAN, ANHTAI V

2173 Ex Parte Jette et al 12568008 - (D) DROESCH 102/103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE HOPE, DARRIN

Appellant's arguments also are predicated improperly on the steps of the method being preformed in the order recited in the claims (i.e., "subsequently restoring," "then restoring").  "[A]s a general rule[, a] claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order." Baldwin Graphic Sys. Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342-43 (Fed, Cir. 2001)).

2175 Ex Parte OCONNER et al 12169327 - (D) EVANS 102 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) ORR, HENRY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Davidson et al 11935933 - (D) PYONIN 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. KASSIM, KHALED M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Bissantz 11703874 - (D) PYONIN 103 DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Gorelik et al 13289814 - (D) OWENS 103 Victor Gorelik CHOI, JAMES J

2882 Ex Parte Hembacher et al 11804632 - (D) BAER 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) PERSAUD, DEORAM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte WINSLOW 12958459 - (D) GUIJT 103 Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. GAY, JENNIFER HAWKINS

3683 Ex Parte HOCKETT et al 12618989 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE

3688 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11126930 - (D) FETTING concurring CRAWFORD 112(1)/103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS WEISS, JOHN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Green 10447732 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 BURGESS LAW OFFICE, PLLC PETERSON, KENNETH E

Thursday, August 27, 2015

schumer, medline

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 12182325 - (D) THOMAS 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP GIARDINO JR, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Williams 12711288 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 LAUBSCHER, SPENDLOVE & LAUBSCHER, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Baverso 11494428 - (D) HILL 103 Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon LLP BAKER, LORI LYNN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Bhagwan et al 12828139 - (D) HOFF 103 101 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION MENG, JAU SHYA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Hathaway 12514932 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 102/103 Donald E Schreiber CONNELLY, MICHELLE R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Monahan et al 10782075 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 ROCHE MADISON INC. CHONG, KIMBERLY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Wiercinski et al 13434157 - (D) HASTINGS 103 W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 12696340 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 GARLICK & MARKISON CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

Regarding Issue 1a, claim 1 recited "selectively cache first content ... or transmit the first content" (emphasis added), and claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations.  Our reviewing court has consistently interpreted the word "or" to mean that items in a sequence are alternatives to each other.  Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir 2002).  Here, "selectively cache first content" is a "disjunctive alternative" to "transmit the first content," and Jorden only needs to show "one of the elements, as opposed to showing all of the recited elements, to render [the] claim unpatentable."  See Medline Indus., Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, Case IPR2013-00173, 2013 WL 8595518, at *5 (PTAB June 20, 2013) (non-precential) (citations omitted).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte KRAH 12687829 - (D) TROCK 103 Fletcher Yoder, PC APPLE INC. PERROMAT, CARLOS

2656 Ex Parte Kole et al 13062662 - (D) NAPPI 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP TIEU, BINH KIEN

2657 Ex Parte Bremner et al 12842211 - (D) HORVATH 101/103 CRGO LAW WOZNIAK, JAMES S

2693 Ex Parte Baillot 11441241 - (D) HOFF 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP MA, CALVIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Kendall et al 12419958 - (D) McSHANE 112(2)/103 Fenwick/Facebook MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 APPLE INC., Third Party Requester v. AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7324833 et al 10/947,755 95001223 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU P.C. For Third Party Requesters: KENYON & KENYON LLP LAROSE, COLIN M original WASHINGTON, ERIKA ALISE

2617 APPLE INC., Third Party Requester v. AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7440772 et al 10/947,754 95001266 - (D) BRANCH 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU P.C. For Third Party Requesters: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP LAROSE, COLIN M original GELIN, JEAN ALLAND

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

fine, vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Brusniak 12164882 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company PARK, HYUN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Li et al 12201167 - (D) BAHR 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ROSS, DANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Bernstein 13197581 - (D) POLLOCK 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) DRAPER, LESLIE A ROYDS

In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the combination of prior art references or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Because the Examiner has not shown that Kroger, or any of the art of record, teaches or suggests the use of folic acid, we reverse the rejection of claims 34-36.

Fine, In re, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 707.07(f) 2143.01 2143.03 2144

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Gero et al 12723405 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. CHEN, KEATH T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Olivier 13121154 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 102/103 41.50 103 GARVEY SMITH NEHRBASS & NORTH, LLC BERRY JR, WILLIE WENDELL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459029 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1657 Ex Parte Chan et al 11869657 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Quest Diagnostics SINGH, SATYENDRA K

1674 Ex Parte Barber 12175898 - (D) FREDMAN 102 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP WHITEMAN, BRIAN A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Charati et al 11689228 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP VALDEZ, DEVE E

1791 Ex Parte Kragh et al 11412797 - (D) BEST 103 DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Bimbra et al 11936230 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

2185 Ex Parte Daga et al 12235471 - (D) DANG 112(2) 102/103 Polsinelli PC ORACLE AMERICA, INC. ZAMAN, FAISAL M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Salowey 11034346 - (D) DROESCH 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP DINH, MINH

2486 Ex Parte Klein Gunnewiek et al 12517224 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MUNG, ON S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Pimmel 11929332 - (D) KRIVAK 112(2)/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 SAMS, MICHELLE L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Gravina 12392968 - (D) BAYAT 103 Tillman Wright, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte CHANDHOK et al 11757373 - (D) KERINS 103/double patenting 41.50 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

3747 Ex Parte Liebsch et al 12516916 - (D) WIEKER 102 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP TRAN, LONG T

3752 Ex Parte GRANDPIERRE 12620793 - (D) HOSKINS 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP LE, VIET

3754 Ex Parte Doneghue et al 11380568 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) JACYNA, J CASIMER

3777 Ex Parte Kucharczyk et al 12321139 - (D) POLLOCK 102/103 101 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. ROY, BAISAKHI

The Board finds no evidence that a terminal disclaimer has been filed in either application. More to the point, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 cannot be cured by terminal disclaimer. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 804.01 804.02 1504.06

3788 Ex Parte Fallat et al 13056873 - (D) WOODS 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY VAN BUSKIRK, JAMES M

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant Ex Parte 8282977 et al 12/383,244 90012700 - (D) GARRIS 103 Dentons US LLP Third Party Requester Hansra Intellectual Property Law DIAMOND, ALAN D original PADEN, CAROLYN A

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

halliburton, datamize, miyazaki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Doumaux et al 12808046 - (D) KAISER dissenting HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, VU ANH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11867735 - (D) HAAPALA 103 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) HO, RUAY L

2176 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11923904 - (D) SHIANG 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Salvi et al 12501412 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POLLACK, MELVIN H

2452 Ex Parte McClain et al 12612895 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2457 Ex Parte Brakensiek 12495119 - (D) CURCURI concurring BAUMEISTER 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation KIM, HEE SOO

Rather, "dynamic data" and "static data" are merely undefined terms of degree. When a term of degree is used in a claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the requisite degree.  Datamise, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Our reviewing court explained the rationale for requiring such definiteness for terms of degree in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Halliburton, the court was asked to determine whether the relative claim term "fragile gel" was sufficiently definite.  Id. at 1246.  In spite of that Patent's Specification containing an express definition for the term "fragile gel" (id. (citing Kirsner et al., U.S. No. 6,887,832 B2; issued May 3, 2005, at col. 2, II. 26-42)), the Halliburton court nonetheless found that no "possible construction resolves the ambiguity in the scope of the term." Id. at 1250.

The fact that Halliburton can articulate a definition supported by the specification, however, does not end the inquiry.  Even if a claim term's definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningful precise claim scope."

Id. at 1251.

The Hallibrton court explained the public policy underlying its conclusion:

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specification of a patent "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." Because claims delineate the patentee's right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims. Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("[T]he primary purpose of the requirement is `to guard against unreasonable advantages to the patentee and disadvantages to others arising from uncertainty as to their [respective] rights.'") (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Carp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, (1938)). The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in, claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942).

Id. at 1249 (citations omitted).

The Halliburton court also noted an additional policy consideration, which serves as the basis for why the Board should not ignore the claims' clarity in spite of the issue not being raised on appeal:

the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.

Id. at 1255.

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

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Neuhauser et al 11777051 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Scantlebury et al 10503549 - (D) WARREN 103 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 12631295 - (D) BAER 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT DRAVININKAS, ADAM B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Golombek et al 12128795 - (D) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SOROUSH, LAYLA

1631 Ex Parte Rambaud 10687636 - (D) POLLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WHALEY, PABLO S

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459493 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459623 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Uensal et al 12375550 - (D) WARREN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1747 Ex Parte Dale et al 12450964 - (D) GARRIS 112(a)/112(b)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte van Putten 13354196 - (D) NEW 102/103 MAURICE H.P.M. VAN PUTTEN ELLIS, MATTHEW J

2175 Ex Parte Gn et al 12345050 - (D) HOMERE 102 LSI CORPORATION TRAN, MYLINH T

2175 Ex Parte Jude et al 12486914 - (D) NEW 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marilly et al 11960691 - (D) KAISER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LIN, JASON K

2431 Ex Parte STAUNER et al 11961947 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(2) 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Rosenberg 11927060 - (D) SHIANG 103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP BOLOTIN, DMITRIY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Craven et al 10582390 - (D) TIMM 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) FOX, BRANDON C

2854 Ex Parte Wilson et al 12110518 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lowles 12394750 - (D) STEPINA 103 41.50 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3671 Ex Parte Goering et al 12715237 - (D) BROWNE 103 DEERE & COMPANY NGUYEN, MAI T

3672 Ex Parte Selb et al 12800975 - (D) MURPHY 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Vontell 11702715 - (D) BROWNE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY DECKER, PHILLIP

3788 Ex Parte Felsch et al 12267191 - (D) SMEGAL 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials POON, ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2782 HTC CORPORATION Requester v. FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6163816 et al 08/920,424 95001420 - (D) COCKS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Herskovitz & Associates, PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PEKINS COIE LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original SHIN, CHRISTOPHER B

Monday, August 24, 2015

wilder, enzo, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Crum 11891323 - (D) GRIMES 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. MOERSCHELL, RICHARD P

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte TAKAHASHI et al 12256896 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Lejeune 12355578 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 102 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP ELLIOTT IV, BENJAMIN H

see also In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450 (CCPA 1970) (“[E]very limitation positively recited in a claim must be given effect in order to determine what subject matter that claim defines.”).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Vichailak et al 12206039 - (D) KENNEDY 103 103 CDTech/Lummus/Osha Liang LLP PREGLER, SHARON

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3696 Ex Parte Senter et al 13296517 - (D) BAHR 103 112(1) Setter Roche LLP BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

Drawings may be relied upon to satisfy the written description requirement.  See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating that the "written description requirement is satisfied by the [patent applicant's] disclosure of  'such descriptive means as words, structures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.'" (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2161.01 2163

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) 2163 2163.02

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Verlee et al 10704114 - (D) HARLOW 112(1) 102 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP PRESTON, REBECCA STRASZHEIM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 11638910 - (D) McKELVEY 102 Huntsman Corporation SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Cipriani et al 12256103 - (D) KUMAR 103 Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC BYCER, ERIC J

2175 Ex Parte Do et al 11970201 - (D) SMITH 103 MOLLBORN PATENTS, INC. HO, RUAY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2414 Ex Parte Robbins 13079190 - (D) MacDONALD 102 VERIZON NGUYEN, STEVEN H D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Vijay et al 11191346 - (D) HOELTER 103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) HOLDER, BRADLEY W

2461 Ex Parte Du et al 12493358 - (D) HAGY 102 BGL/Huawei HAILU, KIBROM T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Suh et al 12120006 - (D) PINKERTON 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. GENACK, MATTHEW W

2682 Ex Parte Conley et al 11863790 - (D) STEPHENS 103 JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P.A. SANDISK CORPORATION WANG, JACK K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Walther et al 11189249 - (D) HOELTER 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MUSSELMAN, TIMOTHY A

3724 Ex Parte Madeira et al 13105958 - (D) WOODS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PAYER, HWEI-SIU C

3768 Ex Parte Altmann et al 11264221 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON FERNANDEZ, KATHERINE L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SPINEOLOGY INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7226481 et al 10/440,036 95002179 - (D) SONG 112(1)/103 112(1)/112(2)/103 Third Party Requester: NDQ SPECIAL REEXAM GROUP Patent Owner: Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, PA Patent Owner: DAWSON, GLENN K original ROBERT, EDUARDO C

Friday, August 21, 2015

enocean, williamson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11818693 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 41.50 112(2) Jackson Walker LLP WINTER, JOHN M

As to claims 22–28, we are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner did not overcome the presumption that the limitation “protocol translator for receiving” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. 

It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. However, this presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” The correct inquiry is “whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.” Therefore, “[u]ltimately, whether claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 depends on how those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.” 

EnOcean GmbH v. Face Intern. Corp., 742 F.3d 955, 958 (2014) (citations omitted). See also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459, at *7 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc) (“we should abandon characterizing as ‘strong’ the presumption that a limitation lacking the word ‘means’ is not subject to § 112, para. 6”). As with the term “receiver” in EnOcean, the term “protocol translator” (i.e., the absence of the term means) presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art. See EnOcean at 960. The Examiner made no finding to rebut that presumption.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12087755 - (D) GREENHUT 103 41.50 112(2) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3752 Ex Parte Esche et al 12368068 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Foley & Lardner LLP REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

3781 Ex Parte Hawkes 12183357 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(1)/103 HAYES, SOLOWAY P.C. MATHEW, FENN C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2131 Ex Parte EL-MAHDY et al 12335077 - (D) KINDER 102 102 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC MACKALL, LARRY T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Bateman et al 11721260 - (D) OGDEN 102/double patenting 103 Waters Technologies Corporation IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Kowa 12148165 - (D) KUMAR 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP BERTRAM, RYAN

2173 Ex Parte Dunn et al 11446019 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP HOPE, DARRIN

2179 Ex Parte Alviar et al 11961630 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Motorola WENG, PEI YONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Macauley et al 11970083 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC CHANG, KAI J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte FitzSimmons 12647742 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP HAJNIK, DANIEL F

2623 Ex Parte YUN et al 12500244 - (D) DILLON 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP ZHOU, HONG

2692 Ex Parte Prados et al 11553666 - (D) KUMAR 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Schonhals 10862484 - (D) FETTING 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC REFAI, RAMSEY

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester v. LUTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 8228184 et al 12/371,183 95002079 - (D) JEFFERY 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP Third Party Requester: David E. Shifren WORJLOH, JALATEE original LE, DON P