IPXL, schreiber, ratti

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Itou et al 10581858 - (D) TIMM 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP LEONG, JONATHAN G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte White et al 11213349 - (D) GARRIS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX MILLER, MICHAEL G

1761 Ex Parte Terada et al 10823654 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE-265550 DOUYON, LORNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chen et al 11874758 - (D) McKONE 101/103 IBM CORPORATION BELCHER, HERMAN A

We note that if we were to construe claim 8 to require selecting email addresses on a user computer system, the result would be a claim that impermissibly recites a method step and apparatus limitations. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

2453 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10253283 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC NGUYEN, THU HA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Foth et al 11321589 - (D) KIM 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. HAYES, JOHN W

3688 Ex Parte Wirth et al 10277162 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Phan 10986820 - (D) WOOD dissenting SPAHN 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company PICKETT, JOHN G

A claim reciting an apparatus may be anticipated by a reference disclosing a device that includes each and every structural limitation in the claim and that is capable of performing each and every functional limitation in the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (upholding the Board’s affirmance of a rejection under section 102(b) on the basis of a finding that a device disclosed in a prior art reference was capable of performing a function which the appellant alleged to distinguish the appellant’s apparatus from the device).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...

I am persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s modification of “provid[ing] the APA with a freely movable blocking member” 17 as taught by vom Hofe would render APA unfit for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of APA. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (Emphasis added)). In Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. Id. at 811-13. This modification fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how a sealed interface was attained.

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

epstein, IPXL, rishoi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Ho et al 09960244 - (D) SCHEINER 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LANKFORD JR, LEON B

1651 Ex Parte Ho et al 11054824 - (D) SCHEINER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LANKFORD JR, LEON B

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Smith 11216957 - (D) GARRIS 103 ECOLAB USA INC. CHAN, HENG M

1727 Ex Parte Kim et al 11746900 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 GROSSMAN, TUCKER, PERREAULT & PFLEGER, PLLC HARRIS, GARY D

1734 Ex Parte Budinski 12015929 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BrooksGroup FORREST, MICHAEL

1747 Ex Parte Johns et al 11465694 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Georgia-Pacific LLC NGUYEN, THUKHANH T

Anticipation is a factual inquiry that we resolve by the preponderance of the evidence of record. E.g., In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

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

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Afrashteh et al 11407035 - (D) ZECHER 101/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/103 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Tao et al 11641334 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC HOANG, ANN THI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte D’ANDREA et al 10447245 - (D) KIM 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Chalekian 11592691 - (D) FREDMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EASTWOOD, DAVID C

3731 Ex Parte Chalekian 11592365 - (D) FREDMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EASTWOOD, DAVID C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12028988 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Haney et al 11702349 - (D) MARTIN 112(2)/103 103 J. RAY MCDERMOTT, S.A. OLSON, LARS A

3643 Ex Parte Stratton 11680543 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 ITALIA IP VALENTI, ANDREA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Thomas et al 10479770 - (D) ADAMS 102 Yankwich & Associates BASKAR, PADMAVATHI

1651 Ex Parte Ho et al 10251685 - (D) SCHEINER 102 obviousness-type double patenting STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LANKFORD JR, LEON B

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte McGlynn et al 11500053 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Emcore Corporation Casey Toohey BERNIER, LINDSEY A

1763 Ex Parte Sodergard et al 11936170 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON MESH, GENNADIY

1772 Ex Parte Butler et al 11326633 - (D) TIMM 112(1)/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC DANG, THUAN D

The arguments give rise to an issue of claim interpretation. Namely, to which one of the statutory classes of invention are the claims directed?  The claims are “system” claims, but in order to be patentable the subject matter of a claim must fit into one and only one of the statutory claims of invention enunciated in 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims cannot be directed to combinations of those classes of invention. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims to a combination of statutory claims of invention are not permitted and are indefinite).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

Moreover, the recitation of a material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not differentiate the claimed apparatus structure from the structure of a prior art apparatus. In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952).

1786 Ex Parte Boerner et al 10579413 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS YANG, JAY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Bodin et al 10733937 - (D) CALDWELL 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC FABER, DAVID

2181 Ex Parte Reynolds et al 11732280 - (D) WEINBERG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VIDWAN, JASJIT S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Bodin et al 11266559 - (D) JEFFERY 101/102 The Brevetto Law Group, PLLC GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

2663 Ex Parte Kretz 11763469 - (D) GONSALVES 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MISLEH, JUSTIN P

2663 Ex Parte Henninger et al 11295090 - (D) DANG 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP TREHAN, AKSHAY

2668 Ex Parte LI et al 10709833 - (D) WARD 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. WOLDEMARIAM, AKLILU K

2675 Ex Parte Ruhe et al 10624305 - (D) WARD 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, ALLEN H

2681 Ex Parte Batra et al 11423414 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Zilka-Kotab, PC TANG, SON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Ping et al 10046497 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED MAI, ANH D

2875 Ex Parte OWEN et al 11553193 - (D) EVANS 102/103 Dickinson Wright PLLC CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Weik 11228395 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/103 Michael J. Foycik, Jr. JOHNSON, BLAIR M

3689 Ex Parte Melchior et al 09981626 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 Morris & Kamlay LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Barak et al 11303790 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102/103 Gesmer Updegrove LLP MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Triantafyllou Oste et al 10416231 - (R) COLAIANNI DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 Ex Parte Carlson 09882100 - (D) DILLON STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. BOCURE, TESFALDET

scott, IPXL, liebel-flarsheim

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Evans 11/612,152 GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER PATEL, KIRAN B

3671 Ex Parte Dumlao et al 10/858,254 O’NEILL 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

The Examiner’s reliance on In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016 (CCPA 1963) appears to lack a full appreciation of the case. The CCPA disagreed with the Patent Office’s logic that if there appears to exist a “functional equivalence,” it follows that the claim is obvious. Id. at 1019. The CCPA held that it does not follow that the use of one core over the other core would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the references before the Examiner, even though the expedients could be considered functionally equivalent to each other. Id. at 1019-20. The CCPA found that the Patent Office’s logic appears to be based on hindsight of the art after having the full benefit of the Appellant’s disclosure. Id. at 1020.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Saho 10/754,742 O’NEILL 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER TRINH, MINH N

3761 Ex Parte Felt et al 11/530,131 O’NEILL 103(a) CaridianBCT, Inc. EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/771,309 O’NEILL 103(a) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/637,616 FREDMAN 103(a) Constellation Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“Because claim 25 recites both a system and the method for using that system, it does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.”)

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . 2173.05(p)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Lehto 10/978,598 KRIVAK 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Waugh 11/458,407 GREENHUT 103(a) MAIER & MAIER, PLLC EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

3677 Ex Parte Detsis 11/220,209 BAHR 102(b) ROGER M. RATHBUN EXAMINER LAVINDER, JACK W
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Leung et al 11/206,245 GARRIS 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Grunschlager et al 11/171,122 KAUFFMAN 102(e)/103(a) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER LARYEA, LAWRENCE N

See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim).

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). .2111.01

lyell, IPXL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Zhang 10/705,109 McCOLLUM 112(1)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER GRUN, JAMES LESLIE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/748,364 COURTENAY 103(a) VISTA PRINT USA, INC. EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Young 10/632,348 FRAHM 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER
LIANG, REGINA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Beabes et al 11/687,035 KIM 103(a) Gibb Intellectual Property Law Firm, LLC EXAMINER JUNG, ALLEN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Wiechers 10/635,453 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, SATWANT K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Williams 11/167,701 McCARTHY 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2155 Ex Parte 6470405 et al Inter Partes NVIDIA, CORP. Requestor, Appellant v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/001,178 EASTHOM obviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC Third Party Requester: Haynes and Boone, LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER WILEY, DAVID ARMAND

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2143 Ex Parte 7287109 et al Inter Partes RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. NVIDIA CORP. Requestor 95/001,166 EASTHOM 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC Third Party Requester: Haynes and Boone, LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NEURAUTER, GEORGE C
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Pulendran et al 10/769,635 FREDMAN 102(b) ADRIANO & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER JUEDES, AMY E

1638 Ex Parte Vance et al 10/623,930 MILLS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER
KUMAR, VINOD

In addition, a claim purportedly directed to more than one statutory class of invention is indefinite because it is unclear what would constitute infringement of the claim. Cf. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1551 (BPAI 1990) (“[A] single claim which purports to be both a product or machine and a process is ambiguous and is properly rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.”); IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (A single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus is indefinite because it is unclear what acts constitute infringement of the claim).

Lyell, Ex parte, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(p)

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . 2173.05(p)
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Brooker et al 11/050,393 ADAMS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Hasson et al 10/894,482 ZECHER 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER KIM, TAE K

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Stoev et al 11/192,422 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LABBEES, EDNY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Schwemberger et al 11/014,897 HOELTER 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Higuchi et al 11/238,144 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

Monday December 6, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Larcher et al 10/549,530 PAK FRANKLIN WARREN 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M

REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, § 41.50(b)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte DiFrancesco et al 10/788,111 FREDMAN GREEN WALSH 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AKC PATENTS

“A single patent may include claims directed to one or more of the classes of patentable subject matter, but no single claim may cover more than one subject matter class.” Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instr. Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding indefinite a claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus)).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(p)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Gomm et al 11/496,361 JEFFERY HUGHES STEPHENS 102(b) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER CAO, CHUN

AFFIRMED

3622 Ex Parte Carrez et al 10/969,916 EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
2128 Ex Parte Dotaro et al 10/253,809 EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K
2628 Ex Parte Dresevic et al 11/075,727 EXAMINER CASCHERA, ANTONIO A
2447 Ex Parte Fischer 10/004,089 EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C
3691 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/706,459 EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M
2432 Ex Parte Sasaki 10/128,234 EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
1613 Ex Parte Xia et al 11/373,571 EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M