Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?” General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the
claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).
General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY
“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).