wesslau, burroughs, coleman, hybritech, sewall, skoner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Qiu et al 10891407 - (D) WALSH 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION ALAWADI, SARAH

“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965).

1621 Ex Parte JOHNSEN et al 12621551 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/103/obviousnesstype double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousnesstype double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

1621 Ex Parte HOMESTAD 12621571 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/103/obviousnesstype double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousnesstype double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

1621 Ex Parte JOHNSEN et al 12621556 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousness-type double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Grube et al 11755452 - (D) BEST 103 GAF WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ. JOHNSON, JENNA LEIGH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Zine 12368494 - (D) WALSH 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC PARSLEY, DAVID J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Habash et al 11815440 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/103 102/103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TOWNSLEY, SARA ELIZABETH

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2186 NVIDIA CORPORATION Respondent v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001189 7287119 11/681,384 SIU 103 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOI, WOO H original BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE

3504 NVIDIA CORPORATION Respondent v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001205 7360050 SIU 103 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOI, WOO H original SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Leonard 11757764 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BADIO, BARBARA P

See In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention. Just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness.”)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11188417 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG BUNNER, BRIDGET E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Meiere 11063638 - (D) GAUDETTE 103/obviousness-type double patenting PRAXAIR, INC. HORNING, JOEL G

1777 Ex Parte Arpaia et al 10556803 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. XU, XIAOYUN

1792 Ex Parte Barnett et al 11669580 - (D) KRATZ 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP WILLIAMS, LELA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Battaglia et al 10994271 - (D) MCKONE 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LEWIS-TAYLOR, DAYTON A.

2181 Ex Parte Sakiyama et al 10775080 - (D) THOMAS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Olchanski et al 09996475 - (D) THOMAS 103 WILMERHALE/DC TANG, KAREN C

For starters, we focus on the issue of conception. As comprehensively set forth by the Federal Circuit in Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994):

Conception is the touchstone of inventorship, the completion of the mental part of invention. Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1994). It is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Sewall, 21 F.3d at 415, 30 USPQ2d at 1359; see also Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (conception must include every feature of claimed invention). Because it is a mental act, courts require corroborating evidence of a contemporaneous disclosure that would enable one skilled in the art to make the invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.

Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 32 USPQ2d 1915 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2138.04, 2163

Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 716.03(b), 2138.04, 2145, 2163, 2164.01, 2164.05(a), 2173.05(a), 2182, 2184

Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2138.04

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kirke 11422638 - (D) CURCURI 103 GARLICK & MARKISON OBAYANJU, OMONIYI

2682 Ex Parte McEwan 10419274 - (D) CALDWELL 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP NGUYEN, NAM V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Smith et al 10899656 - (D) TURNER 103 WILLIAM L. PARADICE, III ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Clough 11961936 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2)/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. FIDEI, DAVID  

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2783 Ex parte MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Patent Owner & Appellant 90010889 5958006 08/574,541 BLANKENSHIP 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RYMAN, DANIEL J original COLEMAN, ERIC

halliburton, general electric, holmwood, newkirk, coleman

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kabra et al 10/610,090 PRATS 102(a)/103(a) Patrick M. Ryan(Q-148) Alcon Research, Ltd. EXAMINER HARTLEY, MICHAEL G

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Rosenflanz et al 10/211,684 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Roehrle et al 11/193,815 MacDONALD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Iritani et al 10/468,800 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(5) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER RATCLIFFE, LUKE D

3694 Ex Parte Lozano 10/821,610 PETRAVICK 112(1)/101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Boyle et al 10/662,697 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

Thus, as suggested by Appellants, the claims’ point of novelty lies within functional language. See Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a vice of functional claiming occurs … ‘when … conveniently functional language [is used] at the exact point of novelty.’”) (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Torrey et al 10/982,279 MORGAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Amarr Company Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Wayne-Dalton Corp. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,304 6,640,872 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: PHILLIP L. KENNER RENNER, KEENER, GREIVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY R. MCFADDEN WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEV, BRUCE ALLEN

To prove a reduction to practice, an applicant must show that “the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.” Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, (Fed.Cir.1987)).

The Federal Circuit “applies a ‘rule of reason’ standard when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence about reduction to practice.” Id., at 1238 (citing Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The rule of reason “requires the Patent and Trademark Office to examine, analyze, and evaluate reasonably all pertinent evidence when weighing the credibility of an inventor's story.” Id., at 1239.

“Only an inventor's testimony needs corroboration . . . [T]he Board must view the evidence as a whole to determine if the inventor's story withstands careful examination.” Id.

Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . 715.07 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Ponder et al 11/762,313 MILLS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1629 Ex Parte Amalric et al 10/466,558 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ROYDS, LESLIE A

1654 Ex Parte Li et al 10/664,697 PRATS 103(a) BELL & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2424 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/078,877 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

NEW

REVERSED

1741 Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/844,947 OWENS 112(2)/112(1) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2437 Ex Parte Destidar et al 10/165,938 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GERGISO, TECHANE

2448 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/848,159 THOMAS 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VERIZON EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

2492 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/433,856 THOMAS 112(1)/103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

2871 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 11/065,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN

3634 Ex Parte Obinata et al 11/321,913 ASTORINO 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E

3634 Ex Parte Sullivan 11/004,230 ASTORINO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

AFFIRMED

1618 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER Vu, Jake

2617 Ex Parte Borst et al 10/422,286 SAADAT 103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE

2853 Ex Parte Donovan 11/017,995 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER HUFFMAN, JULIAN D

2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/944,623 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

2478 Ex Parte Holder 10/138,453 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S

3738 Ex Parte Jang 10/419,280 STAICOVICI 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L

2439 Ex Parte Kean 10/900,011 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C

3752 Ex Parte Petrovic et al 11/359,647 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W

2451 Ex Parte Ramamoorthy et al 10/751,899 ZECHER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH

2161 Ex Parte Yuan et al 10/930,486 POTHIER 103(a) RIM EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD