SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label kaplan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kaplan. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

hubbel, kaplan, berg

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Lee et al 11086022 - (D) KENNEDY 103 HONEYWELL/FAEGRE BERMAN, JASON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Borenstein 12428649 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Perez-Lopez et al 12522284 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PRONE, JASON D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Conlon 12338318 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 double patenting Basch & Nickerson LLP YANG, ANDREW GUS

We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that two-way obviousness is applicable to the record before us. As stated in the MPEP:

Similarly, even if the application under examination is the earlier-filed application, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed to support a double patenting rejection in the absence of a finding: (A) that "the PTO is solely responsible for any delays" in prosecution of the earlier-filed application (In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1150, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2013); and (B) that the applicant could not have filed the conflicting claims in a single (i.e., the earlier-filed) application (In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In Kaplan, a generic invention (use of solvents) was invented by Kaplan, and a species thereof (i.e., use of a specific combination of solvents) was invented by Kaplan and Walker. Multiple applications were necessary to claim both the broad and narrow inventions because at the time the applications were filed, 35 U.S.C. 116 did not expressly authorize filing a patent application in the name of joint inventors who did not make a contribution to the invention defined in each claim in the patent.). Compare In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the genus and species claims could have been filed in the same application.
MPEP §804(11 )(8)(1 )(b ).

The above cited cases make it clear the two-way test is a "narrow exception to general rule of the one-way test" (Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432) and the two-way test does not apply where PTO was not "solely responsible for the delay in causing [a] second-filed application to issue prior to the first" (Hubbell, 709 F.3d at 1149).


Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 804

2695 Ex Parte Yilmaz 12605779 - (D) DIXON 103 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. KIYABU, KARIN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Wolf et al 12499417 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Wesson et al 13059093 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator SIVANESAN, SIVALINGAM

2199 Ex Parte Aarni et al 12468792 - (D) HOWARD 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation HEBERT, THEODORE E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kreig et al 12572667 - (D) HUME 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE NANO, SARGON N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12714086 - (D) CAPP 112(2)/102/103 Covidien LP VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A

Friday, June 3, 2011

kaplan, kuhle, cordis, praxair, miyazaki

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,893 SMITH 103(a)/non-statutory obvious-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY- MD 0750 EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

“[T]here must be some clear evidence to establish why the variation would have been obvious which can properly qualify as ‘prior art.’” In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

1731 Ex Parte Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al 10/534,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Hendrix et al 11/290,291 SPAHN 103(a) Brocade Communications c/o Bever, Hoffman & Harms, LLP EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Kovac 11/444,445 CLARKE 102(b)/103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

With regard to the rationale of the Examiner, the predecessor of our reviewing court has stated that design choice is inapplicable in a rejection where the use of the claimed feature solves a stated problem. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)(use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” ).

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

3763 Ex Parte Simas et al 11/138,553 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER PRICE, NATHAN R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Nabors et al 10/517,732 FREDMAN 103(a) Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Byrum 11/491,371 ADAMS 101/112(1) Arnold & Porter LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

1652 Ex Parte Zandi et al 10/079,949 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
PROUTY, REBECCA E

1655 Ex Parte Lindberg 10/271,186 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10/472,378 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

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

1789 Ex Parte Fultz et al 10/955,443 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/386,217 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

2183 Ex Parte Fowles 11/145,601 LUCAS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

“Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

However, during prosecution before this Office, while Appellant still has the opportunity to amend the claims, a higher standard of clarity is required:

In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (precedential opinion) (BPAI 2008).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte McCown et al 10/934,186 CHEN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK EXAMINER FIELDS, COURTNEY D


NEW

REVERSED

06/02/2011 2451 Ex Parte Helsper et al 10/985,664 BARRY 102(e) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

06/22/2011 1777 Ex Parte Olsta et al 11/599,080 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED

06/02/2011 1722 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 10/546,573 GAUDETTE 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

06/03/2011 1765 Ex Parte Musgrave et al 11/027,442 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

06/02/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/357,971 KRATZ non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

06/02/2011 2164 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/864,267 JEFFERY obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

06/02/2011 1745 Ex Parte Tuertscher et al 11/182,422 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAN, SING P

DISMISSED

06/03/2011 1716 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/018,641 BARTLETT RCE Edwards Vacuum, Inc. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT