SEARCH

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

Thursday, May 18, 2017

yarush, casey, twomey

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte McNeill et al 13967085 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (ZPS) WONG, YUEN H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte MOHR et al 14050954 - (D) CUTITTA 101 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP PATEL, DHAIRYA A

2497 Ex Parte YANG 14046063 - (D) KAISER 103 VMWARE, INC. HO, DAO Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2694 Ex Parte VanBlon et al 14258372 - (D) SHAW 102/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC JAVED, MAHEEN I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Winburne et al 13894508 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 HP Inc. GOKHALE, PRASAD V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Churchill et al 12432675 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Vista IP Law Group - Interlace Medical SHI, KATHERINE MENGLIN

Appellants do not point to any distinction between the structure set forth in claim 1 and that of Hibner. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, as is the limitation “wherein actuation of the motor drive assembly causes the inner tube to rotate at a speed of at least about 3000 rotations per minute, and to oscillate translationally at a rate of about 1.5 to about 4 cycles per second,” does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations claimed. See, e.g., In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973) (“Appellant’s use limitation does not impart a structural feature different from those of the prior art. . . . Whether a vibrator is operated gently to settle materials in a mold or more forcefully to ‘hammer’ them is a process limitation which does not limit or define the claimed apparatus.”); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 579—80 (CCPA 1967).

A device claim “cannot properly be allowed unless [it] include[s] structural limitations defining invention over the prior art.” In re Twomey, 218 F.2d 593, 596 (CCPA 1955). 

Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) 2115

3735 Ex Parte Henderson et al 12248683 - (D) COTTA 102/103 Covidien LP BERHANU, ETSUB D

3771 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 12427871 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 double patenting HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS STUART, COLIN W

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Tønnessen 14123075 - (R) HILL 103 Henry Query, P.C. HANSEN, KENNETH J

No comments :