SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label klein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label klein. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

bigio, klein

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Brown et al 11454819 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Specifically, Appellants assert that Marshall is non-analogous art. App. Br. 12, 15-16. We agree. Generally, the claimed invention is directed to video camera surveillance programs, while Marshall is directed to incentive reward programs. Accordingly, Marshall and the claimed invention are not in the same field of endeavor, and, facially, Marshall and the claimed invention also do not appear to be directed to the same problem. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor). Although not set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants assert that the Examiner at one point indicated that the field of study was “‘capturing, detecting, and analyzing the information.’” App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants that this purported “‘field’” is unreasonably broad. Id.; c.f. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

2178 Ex Parte Giannetti 11412795 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TSUI, WILSON W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Kakehata et al 11826229 - (D) WILSON 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. LAURENZI, MARK A

3681 Ex Parte Lucash et al 11770579 - (D) FETTING 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Olah et al 12941773 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 103 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte O’FARRELL et al 11468619 - (D) WINSOR 101/112(2)/102/103 101/112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy DENG, ANNA CHEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Suvorov 11434854 - (D) TIMM 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC STARK, JARRETT J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bejerano et al 10879063 - (D) LEE 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC HUA, QUAN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Ogden et al 12276094 - (D) KATZ 102/103 Stoneman Law Patent Group BARRERA, RAMON M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Karpf 11074053 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7854627 et al 12/387,125 95001799 - (D) DILLON 112(2)/103 112(2)/102/103 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC Third Party Requester: BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. KIELIN, ERIK J original GILMAN, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex parte DEPUY MOTECH ACROMED, INC. and LIFENET HEALTH Appellants, Patent Owners Ex Parte 6511509 et al 09/073,877 90009348 - (D) SONG 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP For Third Party Requester: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto original LIFENET REIP, DAVID OWEN original HIRSCH, PAUL J

Thursday, January 23, 2014

envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2103,21832184

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 216321812182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01211421812182

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (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.

In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   26422686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

klein, dann, stepan

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Kemper et al 10/732,162 BAHR 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER REDDING, DAVID A

3732 Ex Parte Shirasuka 11/582,111 FRANKLIN 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Quijano et al 11/263,302 FRANKLIN 102(b) Paul T. Parker PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3764 Ex Parte Stenberg 09/879,151 BONILLA 102(e)/103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Ruddle et al 11/227,934 PRATS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A reference is analogous prior art when it is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed . . . .”) (emphasis added).


AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Colin et al 10/675,363 BISK 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2852 Ex Parte Hoffman 11/196,139 PER CURIAM 102(e) FLETCHER YODER P.C. EXAMINER FULLER, RODNEY EVAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3636 Ex Parte Nazginov 10/964,436 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

3687 Ex Parte Love et al 11/416,946 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KING & SPALDING EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question ‘is a differen[ce] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.’” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted)

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) . . . . . . 716.01(a), 2141, 2141.03

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

1711 Ex Parte 6359022 et al Ex parte STEPAN COMPANY Appellant 90/006,824 and 90/007,619 09/289,043 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(a)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER GORR, RACHEL F

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Decision in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceedings, and remanded the proceedings with instructions to designate the Decision as including a new ground of rejection. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

klein, mapelsden, johnson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Dente et al
11/600,401 MILLS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

The Board must provide sound reasoning and substantial evidence to support a finding of analogous art,
such as solving a similar problem. In re Klein, 98 USPQ2d 1991, 1993 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ni et al 11/467,449 COLAIANNI 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

1721 Ex Parte Marcello et al 11/187,030 COLAIANNI 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. EXAMINER ZHANG, RACHEL L

1731 Ex Parte Noland et al 10/917,188 KRATZ 103(a) MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

1765 Ex Parte Gaddy et al 10/956,528 COLAIANNI 103(a) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION EXAMINER HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

1784 Ex Parte Serra et al 11/553,568 ROBERTSON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KRUPICKA, ADAM C

1784 Ex Parte Solomon et al 11/147,881 CRAWFORD 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KRUPICKA, ADAM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Driesch et al 11/207,055 DANG 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER RUIZ, ANGELICA

2171 Ex Parte Orsolini et al 11/112,136 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Ishigaki et al 10/568,513 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER AVERY, JEREMIAH L

2451 Ex Parte Lee 10/696,148 SAADAT 102(e) MITEL NETWORKS CORPORATION EXAMINER WALSH, JOHN B

2452 Ex Parte Yamamoto 10/170,756 DROESCH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER WIDHALM, ANGELA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Michelson 10/371,757 McCARTHY 103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11/119,907 COLAIANNI 103(a) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

In re Mapelsden, 329 F.2d 321, 322 (CCPA 1964) (stating that “[t]he issue [in determining obviousness] lies in what the combination of references makes obvious to the person of ordinary skill and not whether a feature of one reference can be bodily incorporated in the other to produce the subject matter claimed”).

1783 Ex Parte Kornfalt et al 10/581,261 PAK 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER O'HERN, BRENT T

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 Ex Parte 6687746 et al 90/010,012 09/386,529 TURNER 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: Richard D. McLeod Electronic Frontier Foundation EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H original EXAMINER CHOUDHARY, ANITA

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3304 Ex Parte 4944514 et al 90/007,015 07/283,863 SONG 103(a) For Patent Owner: VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. For Third Party Requester: 3M Innovative Properties Company EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER CHIU, RALEIGH W

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3651 Ex Parte 7210573 et al 90/009,221 90/011,997 10/505,063 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MCGARRY BAIR PC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Radhakrishnan et al 11/346,442 WALSH 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1617 Ex Parte Burke 11/897,291 WALSH 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER
BROWN, COURTNEY A

1645 Ex Parte Eberz et al 10/486,187 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC EXAMINER SHAHNAN SHAH, KHATOL S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Mihan et al 10/588,390 PAK 102(b) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1736 Ex Parte Cetel 10/023,565 ROBERTSON 112(1)/103(a) Pratt & Whitney EXAMINER SHEEHAN, JOHN P

See In re Johnson, 162 F.2d 924, 928 (CCPA 1947) (“The flakes produced by the Braunbeck process are neither transitory or ephemeral but are by nature tangible and permanent pending the subsequent treatment to which they are subjected.”).

1765 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan 11/069,518 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 102(a,e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUTTNER, DAVID J

1771 Ex Parte Winemiller et al 11/126,001 KRATZ 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER MCAVOY, ELLEN M

1782 Ex Parte Dawe et al 11/086,105 COLAIANNI 103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

1798 Ex Parte Kressner et al 10/325,469 HASTINGS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

1798 Ex Parte Kressner et al 11/165,437 HASTINGS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Forman et al 11/080,098 HUGHES 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L

2176 Ex Parte Wolska et al 10/713,863 CHANG 103(a) JONES DAY EXAMINER HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Belanger et al 11/492,553 HOFF 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E

2872 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/438,895 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A. EXAMINER DOAK, JENNIFER L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Rowse et al 09/683,885 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3634 Ex Parte Lutkus et al 10/829,101 ASTORINO 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER MITCHELL, KATHERINE W

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Voss et al 10/858,656 COLAIANNI 103(a) BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

klein

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte NARWANKAR et al 10/851,561 FRANKLIN 103(a) Applied Materials, Inc. EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1733 Ex Parte Shimizu et al 10/497,664 SMITH 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1734 Ex Parte Jones 11/411,858 HANLON 102(a,e,b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M

1785 Ex Parte Wilde et al 11/194,498 NAGUMO 112(2)/103(a) HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC EXAMINER HIGGINS, GERARD T

1786 Ex Parte Collias et al 11/606,821 SMITH 102(a)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D

1786 Ex Parte Collias et al 11/606,820 SMITH 102(a)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D

1798 Ex Parte Hamann 11/271,005 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Gunasekar et al 10/903,590 HUGHES 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER TRAN, MYLINH T

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Berthou et al 10/531,081 HAHN 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER MCNALLY, KERRI L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Hahn-Carlson et al 11/120,630 MOHANTY 101/112(2)/103(a) CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Peppel 11/089,183 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3767 Ex Parte Babaev 11/536,928 HORNER 103(a) Bacoustics, LLC EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Charmot et al 10/814,749 MILLS 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (ILPS) EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

The Board must provide sound reasoning and substantial evidence to support a finding of analogous art, such as solving a similar problem. In re Klein, 98 USPQ2d 1991 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Yun et al 11/374,644 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER KUO, WENSING W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11/176,531 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) William D. Durkee EXAMINER LAVINDER, JACK W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Robieu et al 10/711,950 HORNER 103(a) GUDRUN E. HUCKETT DRAUDT EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3651 Ex Parte 6328180 et al 90/010,115 09/172,556 Ex parte Crane Merchandising Systems, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: DOCKET CLERK THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PAUL MORICO BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER NOLAND, KENNETH W

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1635 Ex Parte 6103490 et al 90/010,557 08/261,989 Ex parte DANISCO U.S., INC. LEBOVITZ obviousness-type double-patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: ROPES & GRAY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL W. KRENICKY NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER CAMPELL, BRUCE R original EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Letari et al 11/909,287 WALSH 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11/957,423 McKELVEY 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1762 Ex Parte Yu et al 10/867,146 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1763 Ex Parte Mentak 11/494,911 HANLON 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WANG, CHUN CHENG

1783 Ex Parte Kelly 10/889,998 NAGUMO 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER O'HERN, BRENT T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Metsatahti et al 10/715,162 DANG 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN

2168 Ex Parte Gent et al 11/303,048 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A

2192 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/927,859 HUGHES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Riche et al 10/284,080 JEFFERY 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LADAS & PARRY EXAMINER DENNISON, JERRY B

2451 Ex Parte DeBruine et al 09/814,426 SAADAT 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 11/093,322 HOFF 102(e) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER SABOURI, MAZDA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Wirbeleit et al 11/099,755 JEFFERY 112(1)/103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER HU, SHOUXIANG

2815 Ex Parte Jung et al 10/969,995 DILLON 103(a) SHERR & VAUGHN, PLLC EXAMINER DIAZ, JOSE R

2815 Ex Parte Artaki et al 10/870,102 ROBERTSON 112(1)/103(a) IP Legal Services EXAMINER LEE, EUGENE

2839 Ex Parte Drescher et al 10/541,723 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR

2874 Ex Parte Whitehead 11/240,400 HAHN 102(e)/103(a) Emcore Corporation EXAMINER RAHLL, JERRY T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Kusic 11/454,309 MOHANTY 103(a) TOM KUSIC EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Larsen 10/690,421 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Thompson E. Fehr EXAMINER LEWIS, RALPH A

3748
Ex Parte Lamb et al 11/535,100 HORNER 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3763 Ex Parte Weaver et al 10/768,571 SAINDON 103(a) Bingham McCutchen LLP EXAMINER STIGELL, THEODORE J

3768 Ex Parte Mullick et al 11/045,838 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER LE, LONG V