eiselstein, festo, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1747 Ex Parte Paul 11887719 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WOLFF & SAMSON, P.C. NGUYEN, THUKHANH T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Hyttinen 10775545 - (D) BOUCHER 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP WU, QING YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Islam et al 10798824 - (D) ZECHER 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Rekimoto 11155487 - (D) DIXON 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC BLAIR, KILE O

2677 Ex Parte Panesar et al 11025126 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 Intel Corporation Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC RICHER, JONI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dresden 11877639 - (D) FETTING 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP OSMAN BILAL AHMED, AFAF

3685 Ex Parte Furlong et al 11107957 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. RAVETTI, DANTE

We do not see in these passages any mention of “periodic access.” While the absence of these terms do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is inadequate written descriptive support (see “[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . .
. . ” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 . . . (Fed.Cir.1995)), nevertheless, “[w]hat is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002).

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 1302.01
HARMON 5: 153, 171, 172, 280; 6: 114; 18: 39
DONNER 9: 608-11; 10: 538, 542, 543, 552-55

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.14, 2173.02
HARMON 7: 37; 8: 4, 20, 40, 168, 170, 197, 224, 229, 234-36, 239, 240, 241, 249, 257, 258, 260-62, 266-75
DONNER 3: 64, 66-91, 93-107, 109-14, 116-19, 191, 285, 289; 7: 405; 9: 216, 380, 426; 10: 289; 14: 342; 15: 1, 171-87
...
It may be obvious to provide “periodic access to the license-protected broadcast channel,” given a disclosure of repeated attempts by the ST to access license-protected content, but “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. ” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)  2133.03(a),  2163,  2163.02
HARMON 4: 152, 158, 194; 5: 163, 171, 173; 6: 289; 18: 48, 50
DONNER 2: 573; 7: 234, 462; 8: 1847, 1848; 9: 380, 432, 444, 614-17

lockwood, ariad

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Newell et al 10455588 - (D) KRIVAK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCLEAN, NEIL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Sisken 11488331 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK HOLLM, JONATHAN A

3752 Ex Parte Bevilacqua et al 10561065 - (D) JUNG 112(1)/112(2)/103 HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

3783 Ex Parte Tanida et al 11632269 - (D) VANOPHEM 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. COLEMAN, KEITH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kikinis 09875546 - (D) BARRY 112(1)/102/103 112(1) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. SALCE, JASON P

"[I]t is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device.'" Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)). See also Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[W]e have repeatedly stated that actual 'possession' or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Rather . . . it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession."). "A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Digiacomantonio et al 10852629 - (D) JENKS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO

3788 Ex Parte Oh 11541368 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 103 IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS GRANO, ERNESTO ARTURIO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Stirniman et al 10644054 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Tabarrok & Zahrt (SEAGATE-10/11) MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

1765 Ex Parte Li et al 12247756 - (D) PRATS 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LENIHAN, JEFFREY S

1765 Ex Parte Berzinis et al 11260711 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2) 112(1)/102 SABIC Geloy SABIC Innovative Plastics - IP Legal MULLIS, JEFFREY C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Lowthert et al 09765246 - (D) ELLURU 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. RAMAN, USHA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Bergh et al 11549797 - (D) KIM 103/obviousness-type double patenting Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bilotti et al 11348543 - (D) SAINDON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC LOW, LINDSAY M

3731 Ex Parte Shabty et al 11942865 - (D) MILLS 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC SIMPSON, SARAH A

3732 Ex Parte Laux 11711186 - (D) GRIMES 103 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES ROSEN, ERIC J

loughlin, barker, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Lee et al 11169430 - (D) HOELTER 102 Mark P. Levy Thompson Hine LLP WENDELL, MARK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Eichberger et al 10566033 - (D) BROWNE 103 LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER VAN, QUANG T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte James et al 11594600 - (D) KIMLIN 102 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION BEST, ZACHARY P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Chen et al 10815233 - (D) MORGAN 103 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. JACOB, MARY C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Toppo 11491718 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP KIM, JENNIFER M

1634 Ex Parte Lutz et al 10927669 - (D) ADAMS 103 Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. BAUSCH, SARAE L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Garner et al 10521225 - (D) METZ 112(1)/102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP CANO, MILTON I

1772 Ex Parte Gjerde et al 10921010 - (D) HASTINGS 103 PHYNEXUS, INC. JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

1781 Ex Parte Bechtold et al 10961654 - (D) McKELVEY 103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC BADR, HAMID R

We have considered applicant’s remaining arguments and find none that warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejection based on Hansen, Søe and the European Patent Application. Cf. Loughlin v. Ling, 103 USPQ2d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

1786 Ex Parte McManus 11398786 - (D) GARRIS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Blakey et al 10961410 - (D) EVANS 103 Accenture/Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Suzuki 10953326 - (D) POTHIER 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2485 Ex Parte Shibata et al 11326203 - (D) DILLON 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Schroeder 09994634 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, TUAN

We are mindful that the question of written description support should not be confused with the question of what would have been obvious to the artisan. Whether one skilled in the art would find the instantly claimed invention obvious in view of the disclosure is not an issue in the “written description” inquiry. In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). A description which renders obvious the invention for which the benefit of an earlier date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Kanflod et al 10539148 - (D) MEDLEY 112(1)/112(2)/103 Mark P. Stone MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Gavin 10873066 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Lewis and Roca LLP MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

3731 Ex Parte Wyman et al 10679438 - (D) ADAMS 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3742 Ex Parte Collins et al 11047348 - (D) HORNER 103 SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. VAN, QUANG T

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3761 The Procter and Gamble Company Requester v. Playtex Products, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001415 6923789 10/081,528 GUEST 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original CHAPMAN, GINGER T  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. Patent Owner 95001354 6,672,187 10/087,626 LEBOVITZ 102/103 JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD DAWSON, GLENN K original ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

lockwood, advanced display, zenon, modine, festo, lovin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Wiley 10/622,634 PAK 103(a) Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1785 Ex Parte Hsia et al 11/265,031 GARRIS 102(b) PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/521,898 NAGUMO 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/386,097 MORGAN 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hakala et al 10/492,045 KIM 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ERICSSON INC. EXAMINER ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Almberg 10/225,203 BAHR 103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Curtius et al 10/583,636 HANLON 101/103(a) 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3713 Ex Parte 6344791 et al 95/000,217 and 95/000,222 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA First Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Second Requester v. Patent of ANASCAPE, LTD. PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA MICHAEL J. KEENAN NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER JONES, SCOTT E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

Where a textual description of an embodiment is absent, a showing that the missing description would have been obvious does not suffice. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.”).

“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The standard is whether one reasonably skilled in the art would understand the application as describing with sufficient particularity the material to be incorporated. Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (applying the Advanced Display standard and concluding that the material incorporated by reference was not the detail at issue but a separate and distinct element of the invention from that argued). Every concept of the incorporated patent is not necessarily imported. See Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]ncorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent”), overruled on other grounds by Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/157,893 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B

1781 Ex Parte Bijl et al 10/343,863 FREDMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

We are not persuaded. Appellants have not specifically identified which limitations of claim 24 are not taught by the prior art. See In re Lovin, 2011 WL 2937946, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011) (appellant waived arguments for separate patentability by merely pointing out claim limitations and asserting the prior art did not disclose the limitations).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Ellson et al 11/198,045 ADAMS 103(a) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

symbol tech., beckman, festo, lockwood

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1618 Ex Parte Inosaka et al 11/113,969 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/16/2011 1724 Ex Parte Peragine et al 10/519,691 OWENS 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2173 Ex Parte Ackley 10/960,385 DILLON 102(b) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2816 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/286,562 KRIVAK 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

07/19/2011 2823 Ex Parte Shiraiwa et al 11/469,164 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3654 Ex Parte Fargo et al 10/564,873 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Newman et al 10/842,788 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

07/18/2011 3761 Ex Parte Ellingboe et al 11/333,671 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3685 Ex Parte Koppen et al 10/868,299 MOHANTY 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
REEXAMINATION

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

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3714 BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. IGT Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,277 6,431,983 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER ROBERT L. KOVELMAN STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER WHITE, CARMEN D

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3749 TECPHARMA LICENSING AG Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of NOVO NORDISK A/S Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,288 6,547,764 SONG 103(a) cc Patent Owner: Marc A. Began, Esq. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cc Third Party Requester: Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLPEXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN

In particular, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purposed of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Techs. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, "[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989).

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01

Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . 2121.01
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1616 Ex Parte Volgas et al 09/916,611 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

07/18/2011 1628 Ex Parte Meythaler 10/885,175 FREDMAN 103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/18/2011 1767 Ex Parte Dallavia 11/701,217 WALSH 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2624 Ex Parte Albertelli et al 11/685,338 KRIVAK 101 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER SETH, MANAV

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3682 Ex Parte Minifie et al 11/352,895 LORIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). Here the claimed “kit” is not the same as the co-package disclosed in the specification. At best, the disclosed co-package renders the “kit” obvious. But “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) . . 1302.14, 2173.02

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Toida 10/853,116 O’NEILL 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2857 Ex Parte Moessner et al 11/021,591 JEFFERY 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L

See Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7,162, 7,168 (Feb. 9, 2011) (noting that Examiners should not construe means-plus-function limitations as covering pure software implementations when the supporting disclosure discusses implementing the invention via hardware and software).

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163