SEARCH

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

Friday, December 28, 2012

allen eng'g, boehringer, IMS, Jung, Kinetic, storage tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Eisenhut et al 11294332 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC OCHYLSKI, RYAN M

1766 Ex Parte Heeney et al 12094895 - (D) SMITH 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. KAHN, RACHEL

1777 Ex Parte Beatty 11197960 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

1779 Ex Parte Gaid 12088501 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ANDERSON, DENISE R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Abuzaina et al 12147046 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3636 Ex parte Lear Corporation, Patent Owner and Appellant 90011745 6955397 10/950,711 ROBERTSON 103 LEAR CORPORATION BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original BROWN, PETER R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Geng 10728393 - (D) DANG 102 102/103 Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K

That is, such “being configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the light projector. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
...

Although claim 73 claims a “3D imaging camera” in the preamble, “[w]hether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held generally that “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

We do not find that the body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness; since the preamble does not provide more than just “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we find that the preamble has no separate limiting effect.

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181, 2183, 2184

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 Ex Parte Matsuzawa et al 10152930 - (D) HOFF 103 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION STULTZ, JESSICA T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Caldwell et al 11115968 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Tran Quoc et al 11573162 - (D) SCHAFER 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP LOUIE, MANDY C

1744 Ex Parte Curdy et al 10574003 - (D) SMITH 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LE, NINH V

1745 Ex Parte Giacometti 10552360 - (D) SMITH 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1746 Ex Parte Bauer 11805444 - (D) SMITH 103 Avery Dennison Corporation DODDS, SCOTT

1762 Ex Parte Ung et al 11094102 - (D) KATZ 103 Mintz Levin/Palo Alto HARLAN, ROBERT D

1765 Ex Parte Wei et al 12708368 - (D) PRAISS 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCGINTY, DOUGLAS J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Kottapalli 11638315 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HUISMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Lim et al 10419984 - (D) DANG 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2686 Ex Parte Karr et al 11265629 - (D) FRAHM 103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, so as to meet the notice required of 35 USC § 132, requires (1) “set[ting] forth the statutory basis of the rejection”; (2) “the reference or references relied upon”; and (3) explaining the references “in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, there must be (4) “a reason to combine prior art references[, which] is a question of fact.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Carrison 10793694 - (D) JENKS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

Thursday, December 27, 2012

anchor wall, deering, laryngeal, michalek, reid, york prod.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Shanley et al 11582818 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Dergosits & Noah LLP STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Aichelen et al 11383000 - (D) BUSCH 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE PATEL, JIGAR P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Said et al 10686127 - (D) WARD 103 103 BANIAK PINE & GANNON BORSETTI, GREG

see also Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, 618 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (concluding the patentee did not act as his own lexicographer because “[t]o be his own lexicographer, a patentee must use a ‘special definition of the term [that] is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history’”).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Krueger et al 12023165 - (D) BROWN 103 103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP SMALLEY, JAMES N

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2736 Ex Parte SE-KURE CONTROLS, INC. Appellant 90011404 5,861,807 08/967,729 FITZPATRICK 102 102/103 WOOD PHILLIPS VAN SANTEN CLARK & MORTIMER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

See, e.g., York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The term ‘substantially’ has been construed in patent claims as ‘largely but not wholly that which is specified.’”) (quoting Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983)); Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Systems, Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The term ‘substantially’ can also mean ‘largely’ or ‘essentially.’”) (quoting Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary 1817 (1983)); cf. Anchor Wall Systems, Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the phrase ‘generally parallel’ envisions some amount of deviation from exactly parallel”).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181 

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Francois et al 10585754 - (D) SCHEINER 103 ELI LILLY & COMPANY MILLIGAN, ADAM C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Smith et al 10787624 - (D) FRAHM 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. MANOSKEY, JOSEPH D

2117 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10404783 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 CPA Global Caven & Aghevli LLC NGUYEN, STEVE N

2156 Ex Parte Rastegar et al 11520320 - (D) SMITH 103 Thomas Spinelli, Esq. LIAO, JASON G

2169 Ex Parte Osofsky et al 11191332 - (D) SMITH 103 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ CHAU, DUNG K

2171 Ex Parte Resner et al 11149929 - (D) DILLON 103 Charles G. Call PAN, YONGJIA

2421 Ex Parte Pugel et al 10549253 - (D) WARD 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC HANCE, ROBERT J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Barraclough et al 09740263 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1)/103 CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2435 Ex Parte MacKenzie 10600687 - (D) BENOIT 103 Ryan, Mason, & Lewis, LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Kerr et al 10161514 - (D) HOFF 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D

2684 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 10952236 - (D) McKEOWN 103 Siemens Corporation BLOUNT, ERIC

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Fukui 10925986 - (D) DILLON 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH NADAV, ORI

The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight.

In re Michalek, 162 F. 2d 229 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1947

Michalek, In re, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947) 716.07

Application of Reid, 179 F. 2d 998 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1950

Reid, In re, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950) 716.07

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1501 Ex parte SOLTA MEDICAL, INC. 90010160 5660836 08/435,544 LEBOVITZ 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original HULINA, AMY

1712 Ex parte SOLTA MEDICAL, INC. 90010161 6,387,380 08/635,202 LEBOVITZ 102/103 WOOD , HERRON & EVANS, LLP (SOLTA) JONES, DWAYNE C original HULINA, AMY

Monday, December 24, 2012

katz2, basell, vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11855499 - (D) PRATS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) AL-AWADI, DANAH J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Wiercinski 11314325 - (D) McKELVEY 103 W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Martin 11850571 - (D) MARTIN 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. REDMAN, JERRY E

3665 Ex Parte Takamatsu 10991858 - (D) KERINS 112(1)/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Reliance on this statement in arriving at the conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is improper, as it amounts to using Appellant’s own disclosure in the present application against him. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (CCPA 1982).

Katz, In re, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) 715.01(c), 716.10, 804, 2132, 2132.01, 2133, 2136.05, 2137, 2138.02

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Zawacki et al 11874447 - (D) BONILLA 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Son 11730697 - (D) GARRIS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1308 Ex parte Hitachi Metals, Ltd., Patent Owner and Appellant 90010759 5645651 08/485,183 ROBERTSON 102/obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 103 obviousness-type double patenting BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP JOHNSON, JERRY D original YEE, DEBORAH

If the same invention is not being claimed twice, a second question must be asked. The second analysis question is: Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the patent? In considering the question, the patent disclosure may not be used as prior art. This does not mean that the disclosure may not be used at all. . . . As pointed out above, in certain instances it may be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of terms in a claim. It may also be used as required to answer the second analysis question above. . . . It must be noted that this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined.

In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-442 (CCPA 1970)

In In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008), our reviewing court stated:

Indeed, our predecessor court stated that a patent's disclosure may be used to determine whether an application claim is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in a patent. Vogel, 422 F.2d at 441-42. The court stated that the disclosure may be used to learn the meaning of terms and in “interpreting the coverage of [a] claim.” Id. at 441. It may also be used to answer the question whether claims merely define an obvious variation of what is earlier disclosed and claimed.

Basell, 547 F.3d at 1378.

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leveugle 10470519 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Sheridan Ross PC RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Morris 11022133 - (D) KUMAR 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11030919 - (D) HOFF 103 Ian M. Bennett LERNER, MARTIN

2686 Ex Parte Theuss 11956971 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC BLOUIN, MARK S

2695 Ex Parte Lee et al 10645868 - (D) WARD 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Searls et al 11588682 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. DINH, TUAN T

2885 Ex Parte Yoo et al 11600059 - (D) DIXON 102/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP NEGRON, ISMAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 10732134 - (D) DILLON 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JIANG, CHEN WEN

3769 Ex Parte Van Hal et al 12089198 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LIPITZ, JEFFREY BRIAN

Friday, December 21, 2012

rosco, demaco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Melnyk et al 11735083 - (D) SMITH 103 General Electric Company GE Global Patent Operation ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Coon et al 11878540 - (D) HOFF 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL

Under the doctrine of inherency, if a claimed element is not expressly disclosed in a prior art reference, the reference nevertheless anticipates the claim if the missing element is necessarily present in the reference, and it would be so recognized by skilled artisans. Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). To anticipate the claim, the missing element must be necessarily present in the prior art—not merely probably or possibly present. Id.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kazantsev et al 10171352 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 102 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HICKS, CHARLES N

2442 Ex Parte Lyle et al 11040069 - (D) SMITH 103 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ZHANG, SHIRLEY X

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Edwards et al 10147241 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/132(a)/103 103 -PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. HOLMES, REX R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Steen et al 11444787 - (D) GREEN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

1651 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10482704 - (D) ADAMS 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH FERNANDEZ, SUSAN EMILY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Fu et al 11964960 - (D) KIMLIN 103 HARTMAN GLOBAL IP LAW FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P

1765 Ex Parte Lorenz et al 11713898 - (D) SMITH 102/103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC SERGENT, RABON A

1765 Ex Parte Moens et al 10544116 - (D) KIMLIN 103 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. LISTVOYB, GREGORY

1765 Ex Parte Costolnick et al 12375847 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 The Dow Chemical Company VALDEZ, DEVE E

1767 Ex Parte Behan et al 11604257 - (D) SCHAFER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1782 Ex Parte Schatzmuller-Baragas 11985003 - (D) KIMLIN 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. PATTERSON, MARC A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte James et al 11521711 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP RHU, KRIS M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Regimbal et al 11753328 - (D) SMITH 103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP PAPE, ZACHARY

2885 Ex Parte Sibalich et al 11345831 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP LEE, JONG SUK

The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988).

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 716.01(b) , 716.01(d) , 716.03, 716.03(a) , 716.03(b)

2893 Ex Parte Park et al 11604678 - (D) EVANS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RODELA, EDUARDO A  

REHEARING  

DENIED  
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Patel et al 11578646 - (R) SMITH 103 The Dow Chemical Company SALVATORE, LYNDA

Thursday, December 20, 2012

tec air, amhil, asahi/america, bell and howell, roton barrier, york prod.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hong et al 10439856 - (D) WALSH 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Kamleiter et al 10582349 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. MENON, KRISHNAN S

1786 Ex Parte Schindzielorz et al 10834990 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SINGH-PANDEY, ARTI R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Dutt et al 10655346 - (D) ARPIN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Oracle (Sun) MHKKG CHOU, ALAN S

Where a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 Ex Parte Van Houdt et al 10538576 - (D) McNAMARA 102/103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing BOCURE, TESFALDET

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Kelly 10940267 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP PAINTER, BRANON C

3644 Ex Parte Zubkow et al 11531591 - (D) FLOYD 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG BONZELL, PHILIP J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Feygin et al 10807016 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz & Ottesen, LLP FRISBY, KESHA

3721 Ex Parte Smashey 10371005 - (D) SPAHN 103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

In addition, we note that the word “substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also, Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d, 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

3738 Ex Parte Ernsberger 11702303 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 .MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP HOBAN, MELISSA A

3768 Ex Parte Mahajan et al 11198561 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Beilfuss et al 11288665 - (D) GREEN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Karabinis 11291192 - (D) McNAMARA 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HUYNH, CHUCK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Vigeant et al 12021514 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. CULBRETH, ERIC D

3644 Ex Parte Dunn et al 10757109 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 102/103 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3676 Ex Parte McGlothen et al 11458173 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 112(2) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Oh 11786854 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 Imperium Patent Works CHEUNG, CHUN HOI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Sheskey et al 10485655 - (D) FRANKLIN 103/obviousness-type double patenting The Dow Chemical Company FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11900637 - (D) PRAISS concurring McKELVEY 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE WHALEY, PABLO S

1644 Ex Parte Hubbell et al 12563201 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC HADDAD, MAHER M

1651 Ex Parte Atala et al 11048097 - (D) JENKS 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

1654 Ex Parte Rauschkolb-Loffler et al 11089441 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BRADLEY, CHRISTINA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Galligan et al 12338802 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 BASF CORPORATION LI, JUN

1747 Ex Parte Woessner et al 10501591 - (D) WARREN 112(1)/103 Carlson Gaskey & Olds Karin H Butchko ROGERS, MARTIN K

1787 Ex Parte Li et al 11360547 - (D) PAK 112(1) 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC EXATEC FREEMAN, JOHN D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte McClure et al 12002081 - (D) POTHIER 103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC TSAI, SHENG JEN

That is, these paragraphs are conclusory, failing to show with factual evidence the claimed method and product actually existed and worked for its intended purpose. See In re Asahi/America, Inc., 68 F.3d 442, 445 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Asahi/America Inc., In re, 68 F.3d 442, 37 USPQ2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 715.07

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10675468 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) RYAN, PATRICK A

2456 Ex Parte Li 11133755 - (D) MORGAN 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Feder et al 11094432 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Burnstein 11858121 - (D) PLENZLER 112(2)/103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC JUNGE, KRISTINA N S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Sweet et al 10608587 - (D) KOHUT 103 Hoffmann & Baron, LLP HILLERY, NATHAN

See Bell & Howell Document Management v. AltekSys., 132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The testimony of an inventor and his attorney concerning claim construction is thus entitled to little or no consideration. The testimony of an inventor is often a self-serving, after-the-fact attempt to state what should have been part of his or her patent application ....”); Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We have previously stated than an inventor's ‘after-the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure itself.’” (citation omitted)).

3771 Ex Parte Robertson et al 11057727 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 Charles Livingston YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

3781 Ex Parte Beckstead 11389295 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 DON E. ERICKSON MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN  

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte Creamer et al 10730330 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ADDY, THJUAN KNOWLIN

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

griver, bowles, papst-motoren

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pamarthy et al 11381523 - (D) COLAIANNI 103/obviousness-type double patenting PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CHANDRA, SATISH

1716 Ex Parte Benzing et al 12121047 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE CROWELL, ANNA M

1756 Ex Parte Charton et al 10597625 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1779 Ex Parte Roger et al 11422267 - (D) OWENS 103 K&L Gates LLP BASS, DIRK R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Clow et al 10436232 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. PHAM, LINH K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2861 Ex Parte Kubo 11028897 - (D) POTHIER 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LEGESSE, HENOK D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Karst et al 11541302 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Covidien LP MEDWAY, SCOTT J

3767 Ex Parte Akiyama et al 11508732 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte KAMPSCHREUR et al 12506065 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 103 TESSERA LERNER DAVID et al. SAAD, ERIN BARRY

It is well settled that it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness under § 103 that all the elements or teachings of one reference be fully combined with those of another reference. In Re Griver 354 F.2d 377, 381 (CCPA 1966)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Hiipakka et al 11321796 - (D) ARPIN 103 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP LEE, CHUN KUAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry 10657550 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

1648 Ex Parte Fehre et al 12203268 - (D) FRANKLIN 102 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP LI, BAO Q

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Beckers et al 10961271 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting SHELL OIL COMPANY COONEY, JOHN M

1789 Ex Parte Aseere 11475309 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 JOHNS MANVILLE JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

1791 Ex Parte Qvyjt 10996713 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY SAYALA, CHHAYA D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Wroblewski 11505207 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC KUMAR, ANIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Hochmuth et al 09941254 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TIV, BACKHEAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Nishiguchi 10769865 - (D) HOFF 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO MARTIN, LAURA E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2601 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P., Appellant and Patent Owner 90008325 5128984 07/425,779 TURNER 102/103 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

The Board held:

[I]n reexamination proceedings in which the PTO is considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim construction may properly and should be applied. Such a policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that would render it invalid. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1656; Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (BPAI 1991) (both nonprecedential 4). The Board also held in both Papst-Motoren and Bowles that it would be error to read “inferential limitations” into the claims. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1657; Bowles, 23 USPQ2d at 1017.

Papst-Motoren’s holding that “claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity” is another way of saying that the USPTO does not apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” in construing the claims of an expired patent in a reexamination proceeding.

4 Although Papst-Motoren is not designated as precedential, it was decided by an expanded panel of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, including the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman of the Board, and an Examiner-in-Chief.

from patents post-grant:

CAFC Applies The Wrong Claim Interpretation Standard in Patent Reexamination

2643 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P., Appellant and Patent Owner 90008051 6434223 09/313,120 TURNER 103 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P., Appellant and Patent Owner 90008155 5828734 08/132,062 TURNER 103 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

2782 Ex parte APPLE, INC. 90011311 5,915,131 08/435,677 LEBOVITZ 102 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP CHOI, WOO H original PERVEEN, REHANA

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

gardner2, rose

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Dharmadhikari et al 11790356 - (D) FRANKLIN Dissenting PRATS 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KIM, JENNIFER M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Lynch et al 11809688 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 LyondellBasell Industries ENG, ELIZABETH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2106 Ex parte Brian Prucher Appellant 90010912 5,349,153 07/952,051 SONG 103 The Weintraub Group, P.L.C. DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original EVANS, GEOFFREY S

2156 Ex Parte Bustelo et al 11218264 - (D) KOHUT 103 J. B. Kraft VO, TRUONG V

2166 Ex Parte Gu et al 10447866 - (D) BENOIT 103 ORACLE / HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte James et al 10103400 - (D) EASTHOM 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JACOBS, LASHONDA T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 NINTENDO CO., LTD. and NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC. Requesters and Appellants v. MOTIVA, LLC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001470 7492268 11/935,578 COCKS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original PHAM, TOAN NGOC

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Hirler et al 11262483 - (D) CHANG 102 Maginot, Moore & Beck STARK, JARRETT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Svenson 11134184 - (D) JUNG 103 JACK PAAVILA BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3653 Ex Parte Kuykendall et al 11227861 - (D) GREENHUT 103 CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C

3664 Ex Parte Meier et al 10912593 - (D) McCARTHY 102 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP MANCHO, RONNIE M

3664 Ex Parte Tiberg 11561506 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Bethell 11608312 - (D) SNEDDEN 102 Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY

3763 Ex Parte Conston et al 10496254 - (D) ADAMS 103 GREGORY SMITH & ASSOCIATES SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

Initially, we agree with Examiner that a presumption of obviousness may exist when a claimed and a prior art device differ only in size. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955). This, however, is not the case before us on this record.

Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2144.04

Rose, In re, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) 2144.04


3765 Ex Parte Dragoo et al 11633147 - (D) OSINSKI obviousness-type double patenting/103 FLETCHER YODER MOHANDESI, JILA M

3778 Ex Parte Dziezok et al 11329796 - (D) WALSH 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte Jung et al 11506760 - (D) GONSALVES 103 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BERHAN, AHMED A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Schlesener et al 12034831 - (D) CALDWELL 103 103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP WILSON, ADRIAN S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Mukherjee et al 11201694 - (D) RICE 103 103 HONEYWELL/IFL DIACOU, ARI M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte MOLENDA et al 12186252 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA LONDA, BRUCE S. MATTISON, LORI K

1629 Ex Parte Abel et al 10570986 - (D) PRATS 103 NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC HUI, SAN MING R

1635 Ex Parte Hadwiger et al 10543048 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 LeClairRyan (Alnylam - ALX) CHONG, KIMBERLY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Euston 12290972 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 FLSmidth Inc. Daniel DeJoseph LEE, REBECCA Y

1755 Ex Parte Shin et al 11593572 - (D) SCHAFER 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP BERNIER, LINDSEY A

1792 Ex Parte Barnett et al 11696023 - (D) KATZ 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP SMITH, PRESTON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Sahasrabudhe 11884494 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC CASTRO, ALFONSO

2425 Ex Parte Jacobs et al 10536337 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI

2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10675490 - (D) DIXON 103 GARLICK & MARKISON RYAN, PATRICK A

2437 Ex Parte Noda et al 10240274 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kim et al 11266508 - (D) SMITH 101/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC MITCHELL, NATHAN A

2653 Ex Parte Lipton et al 10772674 - (D) McKEOWN 103 AT&T Legal Department - HBH SING, SIMON P

2663 Ex Parte Bolotine et al 11295091 - (D) DANG 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP TREHAN, AKSHAY

2689 Ex Parte McDonnell et al 11666236 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHERWIN, RYAN W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte McLean et al 11124614 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

2898 Ex Parte Pavan et al 10749130 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C. MOVVA, AMAR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Venegas 10455196 - (D) ASTORINO 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3644 Ex Parte Reiste 11831332 - (D) MARTIN 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. O'HARA, BRIAN M

3658 Ex Parte Leibold 10221925 - (D) SCANLON 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP BOES, TERENCE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Efinger et al 11232300 - (D) PLENZLER 112(1)/102/103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC MAI, HAO D

3744 Ex Parte Konopa 11788663 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION NORMAN, MARC E  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex parte GAMESMAN LIMITED 90009392 7,060,922 10/827,128 COCKS 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP RUBIN, MARGARET R original LEE, KYUNG S

2833 Ex Parte Uno et al 11723036 - (D) DILLON 102 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC IMAS, VLADIMIR