SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label hammack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hammack. Show all posts

Monday, November 24, 2014

packard, Phillips, hammack, cohn

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Imanaga et al 11937599 - (D) BEST 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP GATEWOOD, DANIEL S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Anerousis et al 12172540 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2164 Ex Parte Ghosh 12367200 - (D) WINSOR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Maass 11660724 - (D) FRAHM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LAU, HOI CHING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Ichiyama 11783932 - (D) TIMM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GORDON, MATTHEW E

2894 Ex Parte Schaefer et al 12398726 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/112(2)/102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. MONDT, JOHANNES P

2897 Ex Parte YANG et al 12104526 - (D) TIMM 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C PRASAD, NEIL R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Zopf 11890604 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3674 Ex Parte Durairajan et al 12329163 - (D) BAYAT 103 SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC. SAYRE, JAMES G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chila et al 12099352 - (D) CALVE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - General Electric GOYAL, ARUN

3742 Ex Parte Christopher et al 11502865 - (D) JUNG 103 FLETCHER YODER MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

3763 Ex Parte Mozdzierz et al 12434864 - (D) ADAMS 103 Covidien LP LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1791 Ex Parte Creighton et al 12730739 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

2497 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11787409 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. ARMOUCHE, HADI S

2814 Ex Parte Furst et al 11792619 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) YOUNG & THOMPSON SKYLES, TIFNEY L

The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. This portion of the statute requires the claims “be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standard is not one of exact precision. What one must determine is whether the language is as precise as the subject matter permits given the circumstances. Id.

Precision in claiming is not only dependent on the claim language itself; it is dependent on the description of the invention in the Specification. Although claims are not to be limited to specific embodiments set forth in the specification when it is does not appear that an applicant desired the claims to be so limited, the specification is the single best guide to determining the meaning of the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).


Claims that lack precise referents in the specification and require elaborate explanations extraneous to both the specification and the claims do not meet the standard of precision required by the statute. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–82 (CCPA 1970). In fact, inconsistent use or unclear use of the terms in the specification can even cause a claim that appears clear on its face to become unclear and indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1001 (CCPA 1971) (holding claims indefinite because the claims were, in calling for sealing an oxide surface with an alkali silicate to obtain an “opaque appearance,” inconsistent with the specification which defined an “opaque finish” as a flat-appearing finish which is not obtained when an alkali metal silicate is used as a sealant.).


Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 2111.01 2143.01 2258

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1384, 166 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1970) 2173.05(e)

Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) 2173.03


3711 Ex Parte Cerpok 13082559 - (D) BROWN 103 102/103 ROBERT A. PARSONS GRAHAM, MARK S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Godber et al 12611022 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD WATTS, JENNA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Sayal 10873556 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CASANOVA, JORGE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524052 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A

2457 Ex Parte Bae et al 10778838 - (D) FISHMAN 102 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Anttalainen et al 10595140 - (D) FRAHM 103 ERICSSON INC. MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2672 Ex Parte Price et al 12231123 - (D) POLLOCK 102 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

2683 Ex Parte Foth et al 11503446 - (D) HUGHES 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, AN T

2689 Ex Parte Hjulberg 12102424 - (D) FRAHM 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC BEE, ANDREW W.

3628 Ex Parte Moulckers 11103852 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. CLARK, DAVID J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Isserow et al 11974401 - (D) WOODS 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Gearhart Law LLC ISLAM, SYED A

3664 Ex Parte Scott et al 11786296 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2) 112(1) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD MANCHO, RONNIE M

3681 Ex Parte Oesterling 11864204 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. LI, SUN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte SCHERMEIER et al 12061894 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC YOUNG, RACHEL T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Eronen et al 11845964 - (D) DANG 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex parte CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6600175 et al 90010940 - (D) BUI 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON For Third Party Requester: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. KIELIN, ERIK J

Thursday, March 8, 2012

gentry gallery, cohn, hammack

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Fujibayashi et al 11/585,282 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R

2195 Ex Parte Jiang et al 10/750,589 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WAI, ERIC CHARLES

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Burrell et al 11/515,279 KIM 103(a) WILLIAMS MULLEN EXAMINER NIQUETTE, ROBERT R

3761 Ex Parte Guidotti 10/323,665 PRATS 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Heruth et al 11/374,793 GREEN 102(b) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A EXAMINER STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3102 Ex Parte 4915435 et al Ex parte TRACTUS MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/010,466 07/333,634 SONG 103(a) DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER SONG, ROBERT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Wells 10/931,952 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a)
102(b) LAMBERT & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LE, TAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Samuels et al 11/438,518 McCARTHY
102(b)/103(a) 102(b) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T

3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 11/508,670 FREDMAN 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/859,502 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Brierley et al 09/519,266 HOMERE 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

2184 Ex Parte Ahonen 10/517,001 CHEN 102(e) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER NAM, HYUN

2185 Ex Parte Rhoads et al 10/764,617 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, ZHUO H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Pricer et al 09/752,355 HOMERE 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Yoon 11/408,722 STEPHENS 112(2)/102(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex Parte 6767247 et al JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.) Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of BELDEN INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,119 10/359,498 DELMENDO 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER RUBIN, MARGARET R original EXAMINER TA, THO DAC

Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (patent claims directed to a sectional sofa found invalid for violating the written description requirement because they did not limit the location of the reclining controls to the console area in direct conflict with the original disclosure, which identified the console as the only possible location of the controls).

Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . .2163, 2163.05
...
In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 999 (CCPA 1971) (“We might find appellant’s arguments to be convincing if the sole issue were whether the instant claims were adequately supported under the requirements of the first paragraph. However, we cannot even reach that issue since we are not satisfied that these claims comply with the second paragraph of §112.”); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381 (CCPA 1970) (“[The examiner] seems to question whether certain claims, or certain recitations therein, are supported by the disclosure . . . Nevertheless, it is clear that the examiner and board considered all the claims to be indefinite and that they expressly relied only on the second paragraph of section 112 as grounds for rejection.”).

Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03


2833 Ex Parte 6530807 et al JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.) Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of BELDEN INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,112 09/852,343 DELMENDO 305/112(2)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER RUBIN, MARGARET R original EXAMINER TA, THO DAC

Friday, August 5, 2011

comaper, clay, wyers, PPG, borkowski2, hammack, zurko

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/581,000 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1735 Ex Parte FOODY, Sr. 11/769,850 GAUDETTE 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1776 Ex Parte KEE et al 11/834,803 GAUDETTE 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Caruba et al 11/165,937 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6428542 et al 95/000,446 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

3731 Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 95/000,451 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C.EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “is essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of claim language.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The “purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

PPG Ind. v. Guardian Ind., 75 F.3d 1558, 37 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . 2164.06(b)

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/757,775 FREDMAN 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1655 Ex Parte Bortlik et al 10/568,704 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mazur et al 11/104,120 GAUDETTE 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/385,897 BARRY 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11/057,815 KIM 103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

DISMISSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 10/572,655 VIGNONE RCE Thomas Langer Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane EXAMINER LAM, CATHY N