thorpe, baxter travenol, merck

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Bostick et al 12723121 - (D) HUDALLA 101 IBM Corp. (END/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. LOTTICH, JOSHUA P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Weaver et al 11926470 - (D) McCOLLUM 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. KIM, YUNSOO

“The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 706.02(m) , 2113

“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01 , 2145

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Angell et al 11862294 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L

See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of references”).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 707.07(f) ,  716.02 ,  2143.02 ,  2144.08 ,  2144.09 ,  2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Cunha et al 12349620 - (D) HOSKINS 112(1)/103 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte LA FOREST et al 12536924 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 HONEYWELL/S&S MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

1729 Ex Parte Chowdhury 12336144 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHMIELECKI, SCOTT J

1771 Ex Parte Gray et al 11775247 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 INFINEUM USA L.P. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1791 Ex Parte Cross et al 12195264 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) Hovey Williams LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Choyi et al 11819832 - (D) HUME 112(2) 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. HAILU, TESHOME

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Friend et al 12168138 - (D) DERRICK 103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION CHANG, JOSEPH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Sato et al 11215611 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY QUINN, RICHALE LEE

huang, cable, baxter travenol

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Attarwala et al 12562603 - (D) PAK concurring-in-part SMITH 102 Henkel Corporation DOLLINGER, MICHAEL M

1776 Ex Parte Hecker 12116545 - (D) KOKOSKI 102/103 Jason P. Webb SMITH, DUANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Dexter et al 12035587 - (D) LORIN 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PA) AL HASHEMI, SANA A

2166 Ex Parte Patton 10857343 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. PHAM, KHANH B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Nielsen et al 11261130 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Hong 11809715 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Scheinberg & Associates, PC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

3638 Ex Parte Dickert 12180247 - (D) SMEGAL 103 41.50(b) 112(2) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD KIM, SHIN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hall 12657364 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HUDAK, SHUNK & FARINE, CO., L.P.A. CHOI, STEPHEN

3745 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11548791 - (D) BROWNE 103 Sutherland GE NGUYEN, NINH H

3766 Ex Parte Bonde et al 11739982 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Ding et al 11966894 - (D) JENKS 102 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC YOO, SUN JAE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Korolik et al 12555217 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

1783 Ex Parte Fensel et al 11651976 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FAY SHARPE LLP VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1791 Ex Parte Ledon et al 11910718 - (D) SMITH 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte McDonough 11241819 - (D) RUGGiERO 103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP STRONCZER, RYAN S

2453 Ex Parte Lioy et al 11193068 - (D) EVANS 101/102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

2476 Ex Parte Pierce 11914269 - (D) DILLON 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SLOMS, NICHOLAS

2491 Ex Parte Suzuki 11653424 - (D) EVANS 103 Studebaker & Brackett PC LAGOR, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11513357 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. MA, TIZE

2683 Ex Parte Meyer 11557001 - (D) DIXON 103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Saad et al 11576488 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CWERN, JONATHAN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC 90012114 RE41,531 11/859,364 HUGHES 103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original NGUYEN, BRIAN D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 ENVISIONWARE, INC. Requester v. 3M COMPANY and 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95001344 6486780 09/619,220 CURCURI, 103 SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 GOOGLE, INC. and MICROSOFT CORP. Requesters and Respondents, v. PAID SEARCH ENGINE TOOLS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant. 95001863 7,974,912 11/379,897 HOFF 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP WORJLOH, JALATEE original AKINTOLA, OLABODE

Our reviewing court has noted in the past that evidence related solely to the number of units sold provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding that sales of 5 million units represents a minimal showing of commercial success because “[w]ithout further economic evidence . . . it would be improper to infer that the reported sales represent a substantial share of any definable market”); see also In re Baxter Travenol Lab., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)  716.03(b),   716.06,   1504.03

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

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

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M