mayo, perkinelmer, microprocessor, typhoon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Schelberger et al 11322211 - (D) JENKS 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Sumakeris et al 11512800 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC ZERVIGON, RUDY

1765 Ex Parte FUJII et al 12350764 - (D) SMITH 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LISTVOYB, GREGORY

1779 Ex Parte Han et al 10598662 - (D) PAK 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ANDERSON, DENISE R

1791 Ex Parte Coleman et al 11250425 - (D) SMITH 103 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP Mondelez International, Inc. BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10720960 - (D) THOMAS 103 IBM CORPORATION DWIVEDI, MAHESH H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Castle et al 11361984 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, NAM V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Falkenstein et al 11689584 - (D) WARD 102/103 NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY TRAN, HOANG Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Kismarton 11118594 - (D) CALVE 103 HUGH P. GORTLER LEE, BENJAMIN P

3665 Ex Parte Hannah et al 11277016 - (D) HOELTER 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP MAWARI, REDHWAN K

3665 Ex Parte Preston et al 11340264 - (D) ABRAMS 103 Lockheed Martin and Withrow & Terranova ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

3687 Ex Parte Smires et al 11606289 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 VONAGE GOYEA, OLUSEGUN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Sinclair 11166636 - (D) BROWN 103 MICROSOFT WESTMAN CHAMPLIN KIM, PAUL D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Kovatchev et al 10524094 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/102 101 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP CLOW, LORI A

The collection of a blood sample from a patient is a “well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researcher in the field” that is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into an eligible concept. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S.Ct. at 1294-1298 (“Purely conventional or obvious‟ '[pre]-solution activity' is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law.”); accord Perkinelmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 2012 WL 5861658, *5 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (purely conventional “measuring” steps insufficient to make the claims reciting mental processes and natural laws patent-eligible).

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Krajewski et al 10765822 - (D) COLAIANNI 102 102 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC MAPLES, JOHN S

1779 Ex Parte Frye et al  11569302 - (D)  GARRIS 103 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP FORTUNA, ANA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Arnold et al 10499275 - (D) BENOIT 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS BENGZON, GREG C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Armenise 11399689 - (D) BROWN 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Clifford Kraft NGUYEN, KIEN T

3727 Ex Parte Wood et al 10301999 - (D) McCARTHY 103 103 HUGH P. GORTLER SHAKERI, HADI

3767 Ex Parte McRae et al 11472793 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 Covidien HALL, DEANNA K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Claus-Herz et al 11577149 - (D) JENKS 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated YU, HONG

1615 Ex Parte Miller et al 11651444 - (D) PRATS 102/103/obviousness-type double-patenting DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP LEVY, NEIL S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Moorlag et al 11615136 - (D) GARRIS 103 XEROX CORPORATION C/O FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP WALTERS JR, ROBERT S

1731 Ex Parte Lewis et al 11689688 - (D) PRAISS 103 Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. MARCANTONI, PAUL D

1741 Ex Parte Thellier et al 10550736 - (D) WARREN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

1754 Ex Parte Kruger et al 10555137 - (D) SMITH 103 Siemens Corporation RIPA, BRYAN D

1761 Ex Parte Seo et al 11659900 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz AHVAZI, BIJAN

1783 Ex Parte Rao et al 11208974 - (D) OBERMANN 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP KHATRI, PRASHANT J

1793 Ex Parte Hitchcock et al 11194176 - (D) SCHAFER 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HEGGESTAD, HELEN F

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Masurkar 10875329 - (D) BENOIT 103 Oracle America BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./ SUN / STK KO, CHAE M

2177 Ex Parte Battagin et al 10858188 - (D) MORGAN 112(b)/103 MICROSOFT MERCHANT & GOULD FABER, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte James et al 11097481 - (D) HOMERE 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TILAHUN, ALAZAR

The prior art structure must be capable of performing the function without further programming. Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2008)). When the functional language is associated with programming or some other structure required to perform the function, that programming or structure must be present in order to meet the claim limitation. Id.

2427 Ex Parte Vance et al 11018519 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. ALATA, YASSIN

2427 Ex Parte Levy 10797920 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 DIGIMARC CORPORATION CORBO, NICHOLAS T

2439 Ex Parte Van Vugt 10516149 - (D) KRIVAK 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J

2473 Ex Parte Masui et al 11798659 - (D) STEPHENS 103 MATTINGLY & MALUR, PC NGUYEN, STEVEN H D

2478 Ex Parte Brown et al 10732077 - (D) STEPHENS 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LI, GUANG W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Subramanian 11179356 - (D) MacDONALD 102 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HA, DAC V

2641 Ex Parte Agapi et al 10744254 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE

2645 Ex Parte Toyoshima 12190756 - (D) McKONE 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES TORRES, MARCOS L

2649 Ex Parte Kim 11583397 - (D) DIXON 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LIAO, HSINCHUN

2663 Ex Parte Levien et al 11404381 - (D) HUGHES 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC TREHAN, AKSHAY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Abram et al 11964062 - (D) WARD 103 PAMELA A. KACHUR LUKS, JEREMY AUSTIN

2835 Ex Parte Yen 11639208 - (D) WINSOR 102 LEONG C. LEI THOMAS, BRADLEY H

2837 Ex Parte Amato et al 10534124 - (D) ARPIN 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP GORDON, BRYAN P

2884 Ex Parte Schell et al 11602554 - (D) SAADAT 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS WILLIAM J. DAVIS LEE, SHUN K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers 11400190 - (D) REIMERS 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC LAUX, JESSICA L

3641 Ex Parte Boyer 10800403 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 OBERIKALER C/O ROYAL W CRAIG JOHNSON, STEPHEN

3677 Ex Parte Fink et al 10524811 - (D) CAPP 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Alt 10622184 - (D) SNEDDEN 102 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

3746 Ex Parte Seibel et al 11750783 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103/obviousness-type-double patenting HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. FREAY, CHARLES GRANT

3749 Ex Parte Dowst et al 10603947 - (D) GREENHUT 112(2)/102/103 Harris Beach/Syracuse PRICE, CARL D

3762 Ex Parte OBRIEN 10969397 - (D) HORNER 103 Greatbatch Ltd. PATTON, AMANDA K

3762 Ex Parte Houben et al 11742011 - (D) ADAMS Concurring GRIMES 112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HOLMES, REX R

3775 Ex Parte Re et al 11206892 - (D) BONILLA 103 Covidien LP BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT

mayo, bilski, pitney bowes, boehringer, corkill, maziere, mentor, merck2, pharmastem, susi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M

3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...

See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA

1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N

2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN

The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

Appellant argues that

MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:

The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...

  Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.

Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)

3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD

welker, mas-hamilton, mayo, bancorp, resqnet, katz2, voss

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Triyoso et al 11139765 - (D) KRATZ 103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP - FREESCALE DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD

1729 Ex Parte Kim et al 10542642 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP DAVIS, PATRICIA A

1732 Ex Parte Sheem et al 11515372 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP STALDER, MELISSA A

1777 Ex Parte Eastwood et al 12182749 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC BASS, DIRK R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Petty 11445064 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC VU, TRISHA U

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Hecker et al 10546625 - (D) BROWNE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 KENYON & KENYON LLP NOLAN, PETER D

see also Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2011); and Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 2011-1467, 2012 WL 3037176, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 26, 2012) (“[A] machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.”).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wakayama 10533650 - (D) ABRAMS 103 MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MICHALSKI, SEAN M

3748 Ex Parte Wickert et al 11120496 - (D) KILE 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

In this “arrangement for” is a nonce expression or verbal construct that is simply a substitute for the term “means for.” See e.g., Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1213-15 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 48 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . 2181

3751 INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD. Requester and Appellant v. FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000335 6,877,530 10/457,066 CHANG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 Leason Ellis LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original MAUST, TIMOTHY LEWIS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Shook 11452552 - (D) BEST 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. OSTERHOUT, BENJAMIN LEE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Roach et al 09957459 - (D) STEPHENS 112(2)/103 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP TO, BAOQUOC N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Shimamura et al 10574032 - (D) KIMLIN 103 YOUNG BASILE ARCIERO, ADAM A

1732 Ex Parte Bauer et al 12055539 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP SLIFKA, COLIN W

1742 Ex Parte Dairoku et al 10764444 - (D) OBERMANN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1762 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10822625 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/102/obviousness-type double patenting WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Muralidharan et al 10681730 - (D) DESHPANDE 101/103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2166 Ex Parte Coult 09946009 - (D) Per Curiam 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP AHN, SANGWOO

2171 Ex Parte Scott 10930727 - (D) BARRY 103 RIM/FINNEGAN PAN, YONGJIA

2177 Ex Parte McMullin 10607127 - (D) DANG 101/102 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. QUELER, ADAM M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Sharma 09800397 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHONG, JUN FEI

2427 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 09947890 - (D) STRAUSS 103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY DUFFIELD, JEREMY S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 ONE NUMBER CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant v. GOOGLE INC. Third Party Requester/Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001408 7,440,565 12/033,042 GIANNETTI 103 KRIEG DEVAULT LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original GAUTHIER, GERALD

Principally, Patent Owner relies on the Federal Circuit’s decision in ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 865-66 (Fed. Cir. 2010), where the Court concluded that two user’s manuals for a software product were not printed publications. Relying on the Board’s informative decision Ex parte Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P., 2011 WL 1676313 at *6 (BPAI May 2, 2011), Third Party Requester points to indicia of publication in the Tekelec documents themselves (copyright notice, references to the publisher) and to the fact that the documents reflect an on-the-market product. TPR Resp. 7-8. Requester distinguishes ResQNet in that the manuals in that case were not marked with any indicia of publication and one, in fact, purported to be “an unpublished work and is considered a trade secret…” Id. at 9 (quoting ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 865). Moreover, although not explicitly stated in the decision, the evidentiary standard in ResQNet was clear and convincing evidence; as noted by the Examiner the PTO standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”

2615 LENCORE ACOUSTICS CORP. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ACENTECH, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000499 7,194,094 10/280,104 BLANKENSHIP 103 WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI LLP LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original LEE, PING

2617 Ex Parte Mahini 10627896 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON BALAOING, ARIEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex parte PRICEPLAY, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90009444 6,978,253 09/342,866 TURNER 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G original SMITH, JEFFREY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Gauselmann 11252429 - (D) ROBERTSON 103/112(2) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP DEODHAR, OMKAR A

3736 Ex Parte Miller et al 12020294 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/102/103 Hologic/Vista IP - Suros Division c/o Vista IP Law Group LLP STOUT, MICHAEL C

3736 Ex Parte Noble et al 12333526 - (D) GRIMES 103 Covidien HENSON, DEVIN B  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Hallowell et al 10256818 - (D) SAINDON CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN

see also In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, n. 11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”).

mouttet, CLS, mayo

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Kando et al 11681353 - (D) HOUSEL 103 BURR & BROWN ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Khaliq et al 10953112 - (D) ELLURU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP CHEUNG, HUBERT G

2167 Ex Parte Cannon et al 11091790 - (D) BARRY 103 ADVANTEDGE LAW GROUP, LLC BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Maclnnis 11270999 - (D) HOFF 102/103 TKHR (Broadcom) YENKE, BRIAN P

2432 Ex Parte Jordan et al 10279346 - (D) WINSOR 112(2)/102/103 AT&T Legal Department - PIP Law LLC LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Lindoff et al 10830387 - (D) HUGHES 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS

2612 Ex Parte Gleitman 11072795 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. WONG, ALBERT KANG

2617 Ex Parte Rigge 10672656 - (D) MacDONALD 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP DOAN, KIET M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Britz et al 11708087 - (D) JUNG 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LOPEZ, MICHELLE

3733 Ex Parte Trieu et al 11413785 - (D) JENKS concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) PHILOGENE, PEDRO

3734 Ex Parte Tsugita 10621972 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC BLATT, ERIC D

3761 Ex Parte Popp et al 11305182 - (D) KERINS 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3767 Ex Parte Bierman et al 11295903 - (D) MARTIN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3769 Ex Parte Lee et al 10167681 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/112(2)/103 WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION C/O BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Babiarz et al 10799704 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP JAIN, RAJ K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Norrid 09963716 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 IBM CORPORATION (RHF) C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ KARMIS, STEFANOS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Cripps et al 11419642 - (D) CALVE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

These arguments are largely speculative and not persuasive because a determination of obviousness does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements or a showing that the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference or physically combined with another reference. In re Mouttet, 2012 WL 2384056, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 26, 2012) (citations omitted).

3761 Ex Parte Collins et al 11444847 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KIDWELL, MICHELE M

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Lu 11272448 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1731 Ex Parte Zuyev et al 11557805 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/102 MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC.-Quartz c/o DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP WIESE, NOAH S

1734 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 10581778 - (D) KATZ Concurring GARRIS 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

1746 Ex Parte Rohde et al 10520536 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 DILWORTH IP, LLC GOFF II, JOHN L

1764 Ex Parte Moszner et al 11585280 - (D) PRAISS 103 Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. REDDY, KARUNA P

1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (D) OBERMANN 103/double patenting M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

1774 Ex Parte Stevens et al 10006876 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. DUONG, THANH P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aipperspach et al 11845829 - (D) MOORE 112(1)/102 IBM CORPORATION (ROC) KERVEROS, DEMETRIOS C

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Ieperen 09966733 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Gage 10763289 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED HUYNH, NAM TRUNG

2626 Ex Parte Burns et al 09863996 - (D) DANG 102/103 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP VO, HUYEN X

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle et al 10147669 - (D) HORNER 112(2)/103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

3645 Ex Parte Herwanger et al 11180956 - (D) SPAHN 103 WesternGeco L.L.C. ALSOMIRI, ISAM A

3676 Ex Parte Rickman et al 11482601 - (D) HORNER 103 ROBERT A. KENT DITRANI, ANGELA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Stad et al 11861551 - (D) BONILLA 112(1)/103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SCHNEIDER, LYNNSY M

3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 10752135 - (D) SAINDON 103 Medtronic CardioVascular PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte WIMBERGER-FRIEDL et al 11576279 - (R) GAUDETTE 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GERIDO, DWAN A

GRANTED
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun 10670902 - (D) BARRY Concurring COURTENAY 103 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

And because human color perception is a subjective mental process (abstract idea), the “single most reasonable understanding is that [Appellant’s] claim is directed to nothing more than a fundamental truth or disembodied concept,” i.e., subjective human color perception. See CLS Bank Int’l v Alice Corp. Pty, LTD, No. 2011-1301, 2012 WL 2708400, at *10 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012). In light of the evolving state of §101 case law, the Examiner should review all claims for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, consistent with current USPTO guidance regarding recent court decisions, including Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Keller et al 10498863 - (R) GARRIS 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

mayo, prometheus

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Dunlap 11384004 - (D) GRIMES 101/103 MOORE PATENTS SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

Further, in the time since the Examiner’s Answer was written, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided additional guidance regarding the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct 1289 (2012).

In Prometheus, the Court considered claims that included the active steps of administering a drug to a subject and determining the level of a metabolite in the subject. See Id. at 1295. The claims also included “wherein” clauses, id., that “set forth laws of nature—namely, relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or cause harm.” Id. at 1296. The Court held that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the “steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries.” Id. at 1294.

The rejection on appeal here, having been written before Prometheus was decided, does not address the standard set out in that case. In short, we conclude that the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on an improper interpretation of the claims and does not take into account recent controlling precedent.
 
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Abe et al 10276483 - (D) GARRIS 103 Hogan Lovells US LLP MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Chen et al 11166304 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 Broadcom/BHGL GAMI, TEJAL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Koste et al 11277294 - (D) BISK 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HANSEN, JONATHAN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 11118331 - (D) SAINDON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. HALL, ARTHUR O

3738 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10802314 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Chantz 12014842 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS DANEGA, RENEE A

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Langstrom et al 11386973 - (D) PRATS 103 Amersham Health, Inc. Schlientz, Leah

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Markes 10659291 - (D) GARRIS 103 Dekel Patent Ltd. Beit HaRofim ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hentschel 10527861 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TSAI, SHENG JEN

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Seligmann et al 10891867 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP - Avaya Inc. EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000483 90/009,482 6,815,321 10/377,732 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original LOUIE, WAI SING

2814 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner & Appellant 90009481 5,905,274 08/918,119 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original NGO, NGAN V

2884 Ex Parte Joung et al 10627844 - (D) ELLURU 103 Siemens Corporation MALEVIC, DJURA

2885 Ex Parte Hodulik 11903126 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Michael Hodulik SEMBER, THOMAS M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Hess et al 11060026 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC SAUCIER, SANDRA E

lamberti, mayo, fort properties, tanczyn

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2629 Ex Parte Jeong 10/930,949 WINSOR 103(a) 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC CHOW, YUK

3763 Ex Parte Nyhart 11/931,729 GREEN 103(a) 103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

[A] reference disclosure is not limited only to its preferred embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).

Lamberti, In re, 545 F.2d 747, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.01

AFFIRMED

1733 Ex Parte Mercuri 11/201,354 BEST 103(a) WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

1761 Ex Parte Leskowicz et al 10/822,301 OBERMANN 103(a) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. DOUYON, LORNA M

3742 Ex Parte Saunders 10/939,280 LEE 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

3761 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/298,132 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3762 Ex Parte Whitehurst et al 10/178,011 GREEN 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION DIETRICH, JOSEPH M

3766 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11/057,290 FREDMAN concurring ADAMS 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HELLER, TAMMIE K

Cf. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1295 (2012) ("At the time the discoveries embodied in the patents were made, scientists already understood that the levels in a patient's blood of certain metabolites ... were correlated with the likelihood that a particular dosage of a thiopurine drug could cause harm or prove ineffective.")

Cf. Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("like the invention in Bilski, claims 1-31 of the '788 patent disclose an investment tool, particularly a real estate investement tool designed to enable tax-free exchanges of property.  This is an abstract concept.")

REHEARING
 
DENIED
 
2615 Ex parte HOLLIS MATTHEW TAPP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,848 5,657,076 08/404,114 SIU 112(1) DOCKET CLERK BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original DIN, LUANNE PAN
 
In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 832 (C.C.P.A 1965), “[i]t does not appear to us logical that one should be permitted to dissect the ‘invention’ . . . into several parts and then say because he has invented one such part prior to a reference disclosing that part that he has also invented the entire combination prior to that reference. . . .”
 
Tanczyn, In re, 347 F.2d 830, 146 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.02