Tuesday September 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Askew et al 11/243,645 GRIMES 112(1) AMGEN INC. EXAMINER CHU, YONG LIANG

Ex Parte Curatolo et al 10/176,462 MILLS 103(a) PFIZER INC. EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G

Ex Parte Schindler et al 10/813,010 McCOLLUM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SACKEY, EBENEZER O

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schmidt 11/119,564 TIMM 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E

Ex Parte Jerg 10/603,531 WARREN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER DRODGE, JOSEPH W

Ex Parte Majid et al 10/893,123 KRATZ 102(e)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER GRAY, JILL M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Riley 10/444,451 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIZK, SAMIR WADIE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brandt 10/142,470 CRAWFORD 101/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Elsa Keller Siemens Corporation EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

Ex Parte Darrell 10/615,582 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

Ex Parte Murchison 11/130,510 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY, LLP EXAMINER ARK, DARREN W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Krick et al 10/802,378 BAHR 103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER WILSON, GREGORY A

During prosecution, the threshold standard of ambiguity for indefiniteness is lower than it might be during litigation of an issued patent. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1212 (BPAI 2008).

Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (the standard for definiteness is whether "the claims at issue… are … sufficiently precise to permit a potential competitor to determine whether or not he is infringing").

Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 28 USPQ2d 1190 (Fed. Cir.1993). . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Bodlaender 10/520,199 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

In an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of review — we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). "The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2142

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

Ex Parte Cobb 10/990,104 BARRETT 112(2)/103(a) Timothy E Siegel Patent Law, PLLC Mari Yamamoto EXAMINER HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kokubo et al 09/842,466 WALSH 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N

REVERSED

Ex Parte Beroza
Ex Parte Dibb et al
Ex Parte Dunn et al
Ex Parte Graute et al
Ex Parte Izumi et al
Ex Parte Rochon et al
Ex Parte Stahmann et al
Ex Parte Wimmer et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Kothandaraman et al
Ex Parte Pierre et al
Ex Parte Shluzas et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Armstrong
Ex Parte Binette et al
Ex Parte Bottcher
Ex Parte Coffy et al
Ex Parte DeBiccari et al
Ex Parte Godwin
Ex Parte Graham
Ex Parte Khan et al
Ex Parte Kirkland et al
Ex Parte Lunati
Ex Parte Martin
Ex Parte Maldonado Pacheco et al
Ex Parte Selden et al
Ex Parte Suzuki et al
Ex Parte Vook