SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label merck2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label merck2. Show all posts

Thursday, December 11, 2014

baird, jones, merck2, williamson

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte WATANABE et al 13081353 - (D) MILLS 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP O DELL, DAVID K

1648 Ex Parte Saffran 11052204 - (D) ADAMS 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP FOLEY, SHANON A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Liu et al 11567525 - (D) HANLON 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP IP, SIKYIN

see also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The fact that a claimed compound may be encompassed by a disclosed generic formula does not by itself render that compound obvious.”); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (declining to extract from Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 806-09 (Fed. Cir. 1989), the rule that “regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it”).

Baird, In re, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2144.05 2144.08 2163

Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 707.07(f) 2143.01 2144 2144.05 2144.08

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

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Wong et al 11957084 - (D) KRATZ 102/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MCCORMACK, JASON L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte LOWDON et al 12570030 - (D) GOODSON 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD SERVICES BOMAR, THOMAS S

This claim interpretation is consistent with a recent decision from the Federal Circuit concerning a “module” claim term. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 770 F.3d 1371, 1377–80 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2014) (holding that district court erred in concluding that “distributed learning control module” is a means-plus-function claim term).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Hansen et al 12471528 - (D) POLLOCK 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC SAWYER, JENNIFER C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Liu et al 12043850 - (D) DERRICK 103 Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. GRUN, ROBERT J

1787 Ex Parte Sano et al 12083525 - (D) ANKENBRAND 112(1)/103 BGL/Ann Arbor SHOSHO, CALLIE E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Zeller et al 10315264 - (D) FISHMAN 112(1)/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC CASANOVA, JORGE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Mulligan et al 10043936 - (D) FETTING 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. DOAN, DUYEN MY

2468 Ex Parte Ben-Ezra et al 11972650 - (D) SAADAT 103 SUGHRUE MION PLLC USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL WAQAS, SAAD A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Syrbe 10539170 - (D) MORGAN 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. CASCA, FRED A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Stahl et al 12001531 - (D) McGRAW 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP WEBB, VERNON P

2812 Ex Parte Liu et al 11036081 - (D) HOUSEL 103 THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP ISAAC, STANETTA D

2842 Ex Parte KNOBLINGER et al 12543637 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SpryIP, LLC IFX CHANG, JOSEPH

2842 Ex Parte KNOBLINGER et al 12543629 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SpryIP, LLC IFX CHANG, JOSEPH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Frederickson 12123420 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P.C./Sikorsky BENEDIK, JUSTIN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Endo et al 11172793 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP GORDEN, RAEANN

3723 Ex Parte Liu 12002436 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2)/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP MORGAN, EILEEN P

3731 Ex Parte Tsai 12258339 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Knobbe, Martson, Olson & Bear LLP ALEMAN, SARAH WEBB

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 JAC-RACK, INC. Requester v. UNIRAC, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte Liebendorfer et al 7,260,918 10/116,384 95001727 - (D) SONG 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP Third Party Requester: HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. CLARKE, SARA SACHIE original KING, ANITA M

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

merck2, susi

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Hong et al 11511423 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Wochner et al 12674299 - (D) ROESEL 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DUNLAP, CAITLIN NOELLE DENNI

The fact that Wochner also discloses many other possible combinations of acids does not support nonobviousness. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (that reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious,” especially where “the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art”); 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

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

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Harris 12552238 - (D) GARRIS 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris, Inc RAMADAN, RAMY O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Kilborn et al 11386038 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC SORIANO, BOBBY GILES

Thursday, October 3, 2013

merck2, sakraida

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Reunamaki et al 11169765 - (D) Per Curiam 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP IQBAL, KHAWAR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex parte DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90011683 6,001,067 08/811,473 BARRETT 112(1)/103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC. BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original CARTER, RYAN CHRISTOPHER

"[W]hen an inventor tries to distinguish his claims from the prior art by introducing evidence of unexpected 'synergistic' properties, the evidence should at least demonstrate 'an effect greater than the sum of the several effects taken separately.'" Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 808-09 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). The declaration fails to adequately set forth the results for the separate features that one of ordinary skill would have expected and therefore fails to establish a baseline against which to compare the sum of the results. See Shults Supp. Decl., para. 24. Thus, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence that any improved results due to the "synergistic effects" would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the closest prior art.

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
HARMON 3: 56, 83; 4: 85, 177, 309, 312, 381; 6: 140; 7: 152, 170; 20: 536
DONNER 7: 706; 8: 351

Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449 (1979) 716.01(a), 2141
HARMON 4: 16, 102

Thursday, December 6, 2012

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

Friday, July 27, 2012

skvorecz, techradium, merck2, lamberti, epstein

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Iimuro 11390471 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. KACKAR, RAM N

1723 Ex Parte Ransquin et al 10510183 - (D) METZ 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MOWLA, GOLAM

1773 Ex Parte Betancourt et al 10324386 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 BECKMAN COULTER, INC. LUDLOW, JAN M

See eg In re SKVORECZ 580 F.3d 1262, 1268-1269 (2009) (Lacking explicit antecedent basis does not render a claim indefinite if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the Specification.) 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lee 11284591 - (D) ZECHER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Ben Gill-Ho Lee PENG, HUAWEN A

2168 Ex Parte Javalkar 11669655 - (D) CALDWELL 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Waight et al 09811702 - (D) DANG 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SHANG, ANNAN Q

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Clusserath 11050484 - (D) McCARTHY 103 NILS H. LJUNGMAN & ASSOCIATES PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3732 Ex Parte Lui et al 10593701 - (D) BAHR 103 Law Offices of Albert Wai-Kit Chan MAI, HAO D

3745 Ex Parte Alexander et al 11150864 - (D) SPAHN 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC KERSHTEYN, IGOR

3761 Ex Parte Khan et al 10812380 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Nazir A Khan MD DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Ewert et al 10800471 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY MCAVOY, ELLEN M

1782 Ex Parte Blythe et al 11528830 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 PACTIV CORPORATION c/o NIXON PEABODY LLP SMITH, CHAIM A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Conti et al 10174258 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 VEDDER PRICE P.C. FABER, DAVID

Notably, Wikipedia disclaims the validity of the website’s content and is unreliable. See Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect, Inc., 2009 WL 1152985, *4 n.5 (E.D. Tex. 2009).

2191 Ex Parte Asare et al 10725728 - (D) CALDWELL 103 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BROPHY, MATTHEW J

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Shintani et al 10811036 - (D) DROESCH 102 102/103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Hafezi et al 11373635 - (D) SMITH 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX VAN, LUAN V

This argument is also unavailing because the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling in an obviousness determination, since all disclosures of the prior art must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)).

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

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

1728 Ex Parte Fukunaga et al 11206851 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 TAIYO CORPORATION MERSHON, JAYNE L

1765 Ex Parte Gevaert et al 11051992 - (D) KATZ 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. SERGENT, RABON A

1774 Ex Parte Ogrizek et al 11990537 - (D) BEST 102 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION COOLEY, CHARLES E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Clauson 10444630 - (D) MacDONALD 102 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

Non-prior art publications can be used as evidence of sale before the critical date. Cf. In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Abstracts which were not themselves prior art publications were properly relied as providing evidence that the software products referenced therein were “first installed” or “released” more than one year prior to applicant’s filing date.)

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 716.07, 2128, 2133.03(b)

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Zimmerman et al 09967867 - (D) DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2442 Ex Parte Hesmer et al 10213858 - (D) BLANKENSHIP 102 MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM NGUYEN, MINH CHAU

2469 Ex Parte Grosbach et al 10675677 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 IBM CORPORATION MOORE, IAN N

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Dinu et al 11210973 - (D) DANG 102/103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOBSON, DANIEL G

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Finke et al 11175018 - (D) WEINBERG 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. GILMAN, ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Yetukuri et al 11538942 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderl et al 11240443 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) BLATT, ERIC D

3761 Ex Parte Chakravarty et al 10952014 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP CHAPMAN, GINGER T

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

jones, lemin, merck2, wyers, kao, thorner, aventis

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Nakatani et al 10/513,392 TIMM 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1785 Ex Parte Weerasinghe et al 10/962,994 BEST 112(1)/102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CHAU, LINDA N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Saake et al 10/468,181 COURTENAY 103 EMC Corporation KIM, PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 09/865,030 POTHIER 103 WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun  10/670,902 BARRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 HASBRO, INC. Appellant v. GANZ Patent Owner, Respondent 95/001,345 7568964 12/250,757 SIU 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP KISS, ERIC B original AHMED, MASUD

3731 Ex Parte Jagger et al 10/601,952 GRIMES 103
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10/551,108 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. LEE, DORIS L

Our reviewing court has rejected the proposition that, “regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.” In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In Lemin, cited by the majority, the court explained that :

The position of the Patent Office is, essentially, that Lemin has done no more than pluck a subgenus out of a generic disclosure by Jones, and has used that subgenus in precisely the manner taught by Jones.
Generally speaking, there is nothing unobvious in choosing ‘some’ among ‘many’ indiscriminately. Here, however, the choice is based on a discovery by Lemin that some compounds, falling within a prior art genus, have a special significance.

332 F.2d 839, 841 (citation omitted). Moreover, unlike the “multitude [1200] of effective combinations” disclosed by the reference patent in Merck, 874 F.2d at 807, the number of combinations in this case is truly astronomical.

Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Horikawa 11/122,249 HOMERE 102/103 102 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP RENNER, BRANDON M

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Mahalingam et al 10/436,310 FREDMAN 103 Avon Products, Inc. VU, JAKE MINH

To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing secondary considerations of unexpected results, Appellants must first establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the allegedly unexpected results. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Duffin 10/473,643 GAUDETTE 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1765 Ex Parte Null 11/920,474 DELMENDO 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY VALDEZ, DEVE E

1775 Ex Parte Latino et al 10/963,139 OWENS 103 MORRISS O'BRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C. YOO, REGINA M

1782 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 11/927,019 GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SMITH, PRESTON

1786 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/745,327 BEST 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/393,641 CHEN 102/103 KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391) COUGHLAN, PETER D

2166 Ex Parte Ortwein et al 10/837,980 DILLON 102 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2194 Ex Parte Krishnaswamy et al 10/808,223 MARTIN 112(1)/101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZHEN, LI B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tao 11/469,626 EASTHOM 103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Therefore, Appellant attempts to limit the ordinary claim term “message” to exclude packets or other known message formats. However, the Federal Circuit recently reiterated the stringent standard for narrowing a claim term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There, we explained that we will only interpret a claim term more narrowly than its ordinary meaning under two circumstances: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id. at 1365.

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bliznak 11/239,140 LORIN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3637 Ex Parte Atkins 11/501,967 LEE 103 JAMES RAY & ASSOCIATES WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 11/128,786 McCOLLUM 102 Medtronic CardioVascular COHEN, LEE S

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references
. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

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

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.