SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label hallman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hallman. Show all posts

Friday, February 26, 2016

burr, schreiber, hallman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte LYON 12951247 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Reed Smith LLP HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte Kisielewicz 13020547 - (D) KAISER 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise SHOLEMAN, ABU S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Ahler et al 11744946 - (D) DIXON 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP SIMMONS, JENNIFER E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Nigmann et al 11349194 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 ARENT FOX LLP RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3648 Ex Parte Durgin 12505916 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Zhadanov et al 13785043 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Dassler et al 11859616 - (D) ADAMS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. STEADMAN, DAVID J

1674 Ex Parte Reich et al 11615554 - (D) SMITH 103 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte CHAKRAVARTI et al 12345314 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP) CAI, WENWEN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Banerjee et al 13189063 - (D) Per curiam 103 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION (ROC) OWYANG, MICHELLE N

2196 Ex Parte West et al 12251108 - (D) FRAHM 103 VMWARE, INC. DARRYL SMITH SWIFT, CHARLES M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Ding et al 13194875 - (D) KINDER 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. ALRIYASHI, ABDULKADER MOHAMED

2476 Ex Parte Liu 12852793 - (D) KHAN 103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD SLOMS, NICHOLAS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte BACHMANN et al 13543615 - (D) THOMAS 103 Seed Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC NEALON, WILLIAM

2651 Ex Parte Bourgoin 13057246 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. BLAIR, KILE O

2674 Ex Parte Lehotsky et al 12103037 - (D) KHAN 103 EPSON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INC RUST, ERIC A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Hammel et al 12376116 - (D) TIMM 102/103 41.50 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP CARRASQUILLO, JORGE L

Claim 10 is directed to a driver, a machine or apparatus. As correctly pointed out by the Examiner, "the manner in which a device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations," and "apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art." Ans. 3. This is because "[a] machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." See Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570 (1863) (defining "machine"). Because an apparatus is a structure, the apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure, and where there is reason to believe that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed f├╝nction patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863) 2106

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 2112 2114

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Thieret 11129123 - (D) McNEILL 103 ARENT FOX LLP RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3651 Ex Parte Handfield et al 12955805 - (D) HOSKINS 102/103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP WAGGONER, TIMOTHY R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Wulbrandt 12531656 - (D) BAHR 103 Cozen O'Connor DO, HAILEY KYUNG AE

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 BECKMAN COULTER, INC. Requester and Appellant v. GENEOHM SCIENCES CANADA, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7838221 et al 11/248,438 95002216 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (Knobbe Martens) Third Party Requester: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP TURNER, SHARON L original POHNERT, STEVEN C

3508 ANTEC, INC. Requester v. STREAK PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7133293 et al 95001319 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG (NY) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEVEN LAW GROUP DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original NOT, DEFINED

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 MYTEE PRODUCTS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of HARRIS RESEARCH, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6266892 et al 09/617,376 95001235 - (D) McCARTHY 102 Kunzler Law Group Third Party Requester: THEMIS LAW CLARKE, SARA SACHIE original WILSON, PAMELA ANNE

Monday, April 25, 2011

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER
WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J