function media, typhoon touch, finisar, agilent

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Yuengling et al 11313898 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. TIV,BACKHEAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Afram et al 11862968 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 VERIZON MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Masters 10385587 - (D) NEW 112(2)/102 Siemens Corporation SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification discloses sufficient structure to fulfill the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph). “It is axiomatic that claims must ‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.’” Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph)). The sixth paragraph of section 112 allows “a claim [to] state the function of the element or step, and the ‘means’ covers the ‘structure, material, or acts' set forth in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The trade-off for allowing such claiming is that “the specification must contain sufficient descriptive text by which a person of skill in the field of the invention would ‘know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation.’” Id. at 1383–84 (quoting Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

...
The use of a computer is inherent in the disclosure, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that it is necessary to employ a computer to run the disclosed computer program—software is useless without hardware. See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Jrad et al 11838349 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Foad et al 11029646 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Applied Materials, Inc. PURINTON, BROOKE J

2883 Ex Parte Nash 12067288 - (D) PAK 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SOUTHCO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001911 6468012 09/911,940 SONG 103 102 PAUL & PAUL Third Party Requester:  KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original WILSON, NEILL R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 EVERBRIDGE INC., FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., AND TWITTER INC. Third Party Requesters, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents v. COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant 95001425 7409428 10/829,181 McKONE 102/103 KING & SPALDING, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: Haynes and Boone, LLP CRAVER, CHARLES R original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

spada, corkill, caveney, johnson, leshin, agilent

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/800,622 PRATS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Dewey 10/864,716 GARRIS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1776 Ex Parte Ostein et al 10/480,946 FRANKLIN 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER WU, IVES J

Under such circumstances, we are persuaded by Appellants of error in the Examiner’s rejections for lacking sufficient motivation to combine. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response
to the Examiner’s case, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Caveny, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Suh 11/684,026 LEE 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Sawano et al 11/011,492 HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER AHMED, MASUD
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/377,650 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/943,688 HASTINGS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,415 DANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lamstein 11/024,398 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER PRICE JR, RICHARD THOMAS

Cf. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199 (CCPA 1960) (the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art).
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Turkel et al 11/039,506 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER FORD, VANESSA L

It is well settled that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ueberschar et al 10/783,864 NAGUMO 103(a) Todd T. Taylor Taylor & Aust, P.C. EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Gambino et al 10/163,884 HORNER 101/103(a) Thomas M. Galgano EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2456 Ex Parte Ball et al 10/677,797 ROBERTSON 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Huckins 11/481,319 BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Moses 11/113,425 KIM 112(2)/103(a) Manuel Brad Moses EXAMINER JOHNS, CHRISTOPHER C

3682 Ex Parte Adams et al 10/865,998 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S