lowry, bernhart, king

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Delvat 11480415 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP BUI, THUY T

2183 Ex Parte GSCHWIND 11762137 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. TREAT, WILLIAM M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Kamins et al 11584148 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, LONG

2899 Ex Parte Ruelke et al 11082156 - (D) NAGUMO 102 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Amerson Law Firm, PLLC SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11814689 - (D) GREEN 101/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. POON, PETER M

3657 Ex Parte Russell 11837892 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 LORD CORPORATION WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952548 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 Conley Rose, P.C. KIM,CHONG R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Jung et al 12055204 - (D) COURTENAY 101/112(1)/102/obviousness-type double patenting IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Lesieur 11904835 - (D) HASTINGS 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC KOLB, NATHANIEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Shastry 11964232 - (D) LORIN 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP FIELDS,BENJAMIN S
AFFIRMED 3626 Ex Parte Gombar 11083438 - (D) KIM 101/103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3679 Ex Parte Laible et al 12085642 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Liccardo 11466476 - (D) BAHR 103 Graham Curtin, P.A. GARNER, WERNER G

Citing In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994), Appellant argues that the principle of non-functional descriptive material (i.e., printed matter) is not applicable to the present case because, in the present application, “whatever can be considered printed matter is generated and processed by a computer.” App. Br. 13-14. However, Lowry does not, as Appellant suggests, stand for the proposition that the “printed matter” cases have no application in situations involving computer systems and data stored on a memory. In the Lowry case, the Federal Circuit determined that Lowry’s data structures, a plurality of attribute data objects (ADOs), were not analogous to printed matter because they perform a function and “provide increased efficiency in computer operations.” Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1580, 1584. In determining that the data structures were not analogous to printed matter, the court noted that “Lowry’s ADOs do not represent merely underlying data in a database.” Id. at 1583; see also id. (“Indeed, Lowry does not seek to patent the Attributive data model in the abstract. Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database. Rather, Lowry's data structures impose a physical organization on the data.”). In the claims before us, the recited rendering of each of the characters “in a uniform representative of a different manual labor trade” is merely the display of underlying graphics data stored in a memory. This uniform data does not functionally affect the operation of the memory or the processor. As noted by the Examiner, the graphics that “decorate the characters” are “purely cosmetic” and do not change the underlying fighting game at all. Ans. 14. Stated differently, this graphics data is “useful and intelligible only to the human mind,” and thus cannot impart patentability to Appellant’s claimed gaming method. Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583 (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)); see also King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (confirming that the rationale underlying the printed matter cases extends to method claims as well).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 2: 469; 6: 282, 346, 392, 698; 10: 1139

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

3724 Ex Parte Roefer et al 11986901 - (D) JUNG 103 Michael J. Bendel, Esq. FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

king, ngai, nehls, kao

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Kraft 11239708 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! CHAU, DUNG K

When the only distinguishing factor between a method and the prior art is the nature of information being manipulated, the invention is not patentable unless the information has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the otherwise known method. See King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For example, if the invention is no more than using a computer to facilitate manipulating information that previously would have been manipulated by less efficient means (e.g., manually), “the nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex partes Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Similarly, a limitation that merely informs a user of the benefits of performing the remainder of the method is not functional. See King Pharm., 616 F.3d at 1279; In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Cf. Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339 (addition of a set of written instructions to an otherwise known kit did not distinguish the claimed kit from the prior art).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Gabor 11858025 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ERIC GABOR RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Barr et al 10641365 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FORD, JOHN K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Kong 11195461 - (D) FETTING 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BOSWELL, BETH V

3625 Ex Parte WILLIS 11736675 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2)/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW ZUKANOVICH, BRANDY A

3633 Ex Parte Stavenjord 10675548 - (D) BUNTING 102/103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3661 Ex Parte Sutardja 11338978 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. BEHNCKE, CHRISTINE M

3665 Ex Parte Stoschek et al 11395705 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP ALGAHAIM, HELAL A
3679 Ex Parte Stringer 11371866 - (D) HILL 112(2)/103 EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

3683 Ex Parte Flockhart et al 10673105 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

huai-hung, kao, king

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10933280 - (D) GRIMES 103 ACS LLC CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP SIMS, JASON M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Ilnicki et al 11127487 - (D) McKONE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC JEUDY, JOSNEL

See In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Just as in King Pharmaceuticals, the informing step does not ‘transform[ ] the process of taking the drug.’” (quoting King Pharm., 616 F.3d at 1279)).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11152686 - (D) DILLON 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Foley & Lardner LLP ROSARIO, DENNIS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Healey et al 11146745 - (D) BONILLA 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OROPEZA, FRANCES P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3713 Ex parte ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 90009524 6193520 09/109,784 MARTIN 102/103 112(1)/112(2)/103 Whitaker Law Group WOOD, WILLIAM H original CHENG, JOE H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Bieley 11969199 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 HARLAN CLAYTON BIELEY JAVANMARD, SAHAR

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Roesler et al 11198707 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC SERGENT, RABON A

1787 Ex Parte Funakoshi et al 11783473 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 SUGHRUE-265550 SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Price et al 11499185 - (D) WEINBERG 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP PATEL, DHARTI HARIDAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Basner et al 11879325 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Glynn Tech Inc. LOFTUS, ANN E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 SOUTHERN SALES & MARKETING GROUP, INC. Requester and Appellant v. WORLD FACTORY, INC. Patent Owner 95000104 6612713 10/068,424 COCKS 112(1) LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. WALTON, PLLC RUBIN, MARGARET R original SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S

spada, king, ludtke, fresenius, schering

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Carpenter et al 10271832 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/102 Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP GUPTA, ANISH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Luo et al 10996218 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1726 Ex Parte Fukumoto et al 11520571 - (D) HOUSEL 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP RHEE, JANE J

1782 Ex Parte Wang et al 10241278 - (D) BEST 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. PATTERSON, MARC A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Doerfler et al 11213168 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

3635 Ex Parte Near et al 11731066 - (D) SAINDON 103 JOHNS MANVILLE KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Clague et al 10694037 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Medtronic CardioVascular NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

3734 Ex Parte Valencia 11526326 - (D) SCHEINER 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

3739 Ex Parte Scott et al 11238698 - (D) MILLS 112(2)/102/103 PATENT DEPT - INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

3763 Ex Parte Kusleika 10825309 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3773 Ex Parte Vogel et al 11363426 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 Klaus J. Bach MASHACK, MARK F

“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971)). In this case, however, the Examiner has not shown a sound basis to shift the burden to Appellants.

Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) . . . . . . .1206, 2112.02, 2131.01

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

3778 Ex Parte Calvert 11277571 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Czyzewski et al 11044396 - (D) OWENS 103 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11201767 - (D) PAK 103 103/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Schoenfeld 10693423 - (D) GONSALVES 103 103 Fogarty, L.L.C. VU, VIET DUY

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10925905 - (D) GREEN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Prohaska et al 11169936 - (D) OWENS 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC OLSEN, KAJ K

1774 Ex Parte Martin et al 10006875 - (D) ROBERTSON 102/103 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. DUONG, THANH P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Poerner et al 10666227 - (D) McNAMARA 103 Siemens Corporation LO, WEILUN

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Young 10621227 - (D) McNAMARA 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. INGVOLDSTAD, BENNETT

2457 Ex Parte Orhomuru 09862789 - (D) DIXON 102/103 WILLIAMSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC JACOBS, LASHONDA T

We first note that Appellant employs the Markush group format in claim 5 by reciting “selecting an operation from the group consisting of accessing data . . . , posting data . . . , updating data . . . , deleting data . . . , and combinations thereof.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h)(I). Accordingly, Xu discloses the “selecting” step if Xu discloses selecting one of the recited operations in the group. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (2009) (“[T]he entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art.”) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . .2112

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte HASHIGUCHI et al 09166233 - (D) MORRISON 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC MILLER, WILLIAM L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11606620 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EASTWOOD, DAVID C

3737 Ex Parte Tarakci et al 11189437 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 CARR & FERRELL LLP HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

3778 Ex Parte Song et al 10902998 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Davenport et al 10121325 - (D) WALSH 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FUBARA, BLESSING M

moncla, broadcom, ventana, martek, arlington, curtiss-wright, Phillips, ngai, king

REVERSED

1735 Ex Parte Ozkan et al 11/410,267 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER POLYANSKY, ALEXANDER

2111 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/942,351 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2163 Ex Parte Feinberg 11/033,646 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

2187 Ex Parte Kallahalla et al 10/959,536 BARRY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

When all other rejections on appeal have been reversed, and the only remaining rejection is a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, it is premature to address the provisional rejection. Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1648 Ex Parte Wolff et al 11/828,272 GRIMES 102(b)/112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S

1731 Ex Parte Wanninger et al 10/058,832 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words of expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”). Substantive differences between the claims “can be a ‘useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.’” Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also, Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laim differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous.”).

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

3623 Ex Parte Schroeder et al 10/302,406 KIM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

3654 Ex Parte Szentistvany 10/524,122 BARRETT 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3738 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/106,421 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
AFFIRMED

1736 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/582,593 GAUDETTE 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

2128 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 10/747,967 HUGHES 102(e)/102(b) RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP EXAMINER SILVER, DAVID

2617 Ex Parte Stephens 10/875,753 NAPPI 103(a) Thorpe North & Western LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

3761 Ex Parte Long et al 11/511,573 GREENHUT 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

First, Appellants are not entitled to patent a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See also, King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01