REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10/845,068 COLAIANNI 103(a) WILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC. C/O WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Vera 11/244,946 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER WU, YICUN
2161 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/943,054 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BIBBEE, JARED M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Boer et al 10/672,657 KRIVAK 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/580,592 ASTORINO 102(b) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Balthes et al 10/287,250 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Boccasam et al 11/244,060 FISCHETTI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Steven P. Arnheim Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Rippolone 10/787,429 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V
The Examiner relies on In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) to provide reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bortugno’s system to duplicate parts. (Id.). The Examiner does not analogize the facts in Harza to the facts in this appeal.
The Appellant contends the “reasoning for duplication of parts does not apply.” (App. Br. 7). In Harza, the court held that “[i]t is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.” Harza , 274 F.2d at 671 (italics added). The Appellant points out that the three gutter sections recited in claims 7 and 8 “are different and not duplicates.” (Id.).
...
These modifications are far beyond the holding in Harza, which is limited to a mere duplication of parts.
Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3685 Ex Parte Cihula 10/746,077 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAWRENCE CHO ATTORNEY AT LAW C/O CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kast et al 10/836,127 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER
LAM, ANN Y
1745 Ex Parte Stull et al 11/157,004 WARREN 103(a) Integrated Turf Solutions, LLC EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A
1767 Ex Parte Good et al 10/968,658 COLAIANNI 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
1716 Ex Parte Mikhaylichenko et al 10/816,487 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
1796 Ex Parte Adkins et al 10/687,156 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11/398,138 DANG 102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Zafar et al 10/717,242 KOHUT 102(e) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER GESESSE, TILAHUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 10/365,088 GAY ANN SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WM. CATES RAMBO EXAMINER SILBERMANN, JOANNE
3621 Ex parte MILLER 10/192,185 PETRAVICK 103(a) Edwin H. Taylor BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (“The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”). We decline to read the three criteria argued by the Appellant into the claims.
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . .2106, 2111.01
See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention. Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
3633 Ex Parte Broad et al 10/871,401 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, ADRIANA
3686 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 10/337,132 FISCHETTI 103(a) Alexander J. Burke Siemens Corporation EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 10/749,871 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
REHEARING
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 11/517,723 McCARTHY 102(b) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER BUCKLE JR, JAMES J
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG
NEW
REVERSED
3781 Ex Parte Borowski et al 11/039,426 STAICOVICI 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N
1785 Ex Parte Burch et al 11/796,639 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
1777 Ex Parte Kraft 11/873,117 NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2612 Ex Parte Batra et al 11/423,411 DROESCH 103(a) Zilka-Kotab, PC EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY
AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Apffel 11/580,857 COLAIANNI 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 10/813,760 WALSH 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S
1731 Ex Parte Braganca et al 10/518,443 WARREN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,829 LORIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL
REHEARING
3654 Ex Parte Meckler 10/794,872 O’NEILL HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER HAUGLAND, SCOTT J
No comments :
Post a Comment