sneed, orthopedic, andersen, nievelt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Miller et al 12407136 - (D) MURPHY 102 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Pepperell 11515631 - (D) WEINBERG 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RASHID, HARUNUR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Rolleston 11001431 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP RUDOLPH, VINCENT M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2817 Ex Parte Manning 11492138 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 102/103 FLETCHER YODER SMITH, BRADLEY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Bruns et al 12754752 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER LLP NELSON JR, MILTON

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Bandholz et al 12135305 - (D) SHAW 102/103 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

2139 Ex Parte LIU et al 12333022 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd (for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd) BANSAL, GURTEJ

2158 Ex Parte Koch et al 11760483 - (D) JURGOVAN 112(1)/102 KENYON & KENYON LLP SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Moore et al 10883993 - (D) DIXON 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP RICHER, AARON M

2648 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 11039020 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 BGL/Broadcom SHARMA, SUJATHA R

2669 Ex Parte Kaus et al 11573290 - (D) DILLON 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MOTSINGER, SEAN T

We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. "[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 Fed. Cir. 1983 (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968)); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 1445 , 2145

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 716.04

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) 2145

2683 Ex Parte Buck et al 12041746 - (D) DIXON 103 HAMILTON, DESCANCTIS & CHA (GENERAL) SAMSON, SARA B

2689 Ex Parte Adams 11955455 - (D) FRAHM 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (FOR RIM) TERRELL, EMILY C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Chauncey et al 11512535 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

2881 Ex Parte Muntean et al 12277198 - (D) OWENS 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global CHANG, HANWAY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Mayabb 11709018 - (D) HOELTER 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Atkin 11463131 - (D) HOMERE 103 IBM CORPORATION (RHF) C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ HUYNH, THU V

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2817 XILINX, INC. Requester v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte GABARA et al 7,429,899 11/697,908 95001628 - (D) CURCURI 112(1)/102/103 NDQ Special Reexam Group Third Party Requester: Haynes & Boone, LLP Deb, Anjan original MIS, DAVID C

bond, robertson, schriber-schroth, sneed

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Wolf et al 10909380 - (D) BUI 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LY, CHEYNE D

While claim terms are given their “broadest reasonable construction,” any such construction must be “consistent with the specification, … and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis added).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131, 2183, 2184

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 1445, 2145

[C]laims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217, 61 S.Ct. 235 (1940) (“The claims of a patent are always to be read or interpreted in light of its specifications.”).

2183 Ex Parte Master et al 09997530 - (D) JEFFERY 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP VICARY, KEITH E

see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice)

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Appleyard et al 11359264 - (D) SMITH 102/103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

1777 Ex Parte Oklejas 12023194 - (D) SMITH 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. MENON, KRISHNAN S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Roberts et al 09855804 - (D) CALDWELL 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC MATTIS, JASON E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Ramos et al 11215571 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG HSU, AMY R

2679 Ex Parte Rackham 10096310 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 ANDREWS KURTH LLP AMINI, JAVID A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Cookson et al 10748441 - (D) BAHR 102 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

danly, haas, desilva, young2, sneed

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/891,883 SAADAT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Sperry et al 10/979,583 STAICOVICI 103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Piepgras et al 11/419,660 SAADAT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Philips Intellectual Property and Standards EXAMINER PAYNE, SHARON E
The Examiner, citing MPEP § 2114, found that the phrase “to provide the at least one control signal to the at least one lighting unit” is functional language not entitled to patentable weight as it merely describes an intended use of the apparatus (Ans. 5, 23-24). Appellants contend that “a conductor ‘provid[ing] the at least one control signal’ claims what a conductor is, not what a conductor does” (Reply Br. 13 (brackets in original); see also App. Br. 14). ... We find that this distinction between the conductors for the power and the control signal is a structural distinction that must be given patentable weight, see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959).

Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2114

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Hakiel et al 10/667,581 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Nordstrand 10/302,564 BARRETT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3684 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/237,424 LORIN 102(b) TIMOTHY P. O'HAGAN EXAMINER VIZVARY, GERALD C
Cf. Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation."); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[An appeal] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11/415,333 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ESHETE, ZELALEM

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
3751 Ex Parte Adelman 11/650,711 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

kamal, sneed, moore, sarett, optivus, scholl

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ellington et al 10/431,634 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Yagi et al 10/942,107 KIMLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE – 265550 

It is by now axiomatic that claim language is not to be read in a vacuum but in light of the supporting specification as it would reasonably be read by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). Also, claims are not to be read in manner that renders them inoperative. In re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867, 872 (CCPA 1968); In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 1019 (CCPA 1964). 

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145 

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172 

Sarett, In re, 327 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Ginggen et al 11/098,071 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) CHERYL F. COHEN, LLC 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Moriyama et al 10/263,642 ADAMS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Kuwahara et al 10/702,661 RUGGIERO 102(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC 

See Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A. , 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ex parte Scholl, No. 2007-3653, slip op. at 18 n.13 (BPAI Mar. 13, 2008) (informative), available at  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd073653.pdf.