ksr

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Frazer 10475203 - (D) ADAMS 103 COOLEY LLP BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Tang et al 11371508 - (D) McKELVEY 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Varanasi 11171599 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. AHMED, ENAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Helmer et al 12104614 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Nicol et al 11480296 - (D) ARPIN 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, “[w]hen there is a design need . . . to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (emphasis added).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04
DONNER 8: 31-87, 109-12, 397, 404-13, 477, 478, 512, 514, 536, 544, 545, 714-17, 720, 837, 846, 875-77, 888, 906-13, 921, 982, 1144-46, 1157, 1175-82, 1190, 1234, 1345-49, 1356, 1402, 1403, 1465, 1610, 1720, 1727, 1729-34, 1739, 1748-50, 1761, 1779-86, 1794, 1905, 1907

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P. Requester and Appellant v. FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001567 7376388 11/498,415 JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Foster Pepper PLLC Third Party Requester: Foley & Lardner LLP NASSER, ROBERT L original GESESSE, TILAHUN

donaldson, carroll, valmont, johnston1, alcon, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Karau et al 11583192 - (D) FLOYD 102/103 Jackson Walker LLP MORGAN, EILEEN P

“[T]he ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.” In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). In other words, in order to meet a “means plus function” limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using the structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993)  2183,  2184, 2186

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte MALET et al 12147111 - (D) GAUDETTE 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE DIAL CORPORATION DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

This argument is unpersuasive because the "motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the [applicant] had. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (stating that it is error to look "only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve");

Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F. 3d 1362, 1368 ((Fed. Cir. 2012)

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, , 2145, 2216,  2242,  2286,  2616,  2642,  2686.04

1767 Ex Parte Mabey et al 11654486 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY STANLEY, JANE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Bourland et al 11647964 - (D) JEFFERY 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, KIM T

2193 Ex Parte Weaver 10041743 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/102/103 NCR Corporation VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2496 Ex Parte van Bemmel et al 10970143 - (D) JEFFERY 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP POLTORAK, PIOTR

KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte HSI et al 11691281 - (D) FETTING 102 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON ULLAH MASUD, MOHAMMAD R


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Demmy et al 11729686 - (D) BUNTING 103 Covidien LP LOPEZ, MICHELLE

When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question also is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, , 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Shea 12069778 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(2)/103 112(2)/103 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor CORMIER, DAVID G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Brady et al 10753979 - (D) RICE 103 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SCHELL, LAURA C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Pagani 11768383 - (D) BEST 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC KURPLE, KARL

1765 Ex Parte Weber et al 11019492 - (D) McKELVEY 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. LISTVOYB, GREGORY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte JOHNSTON et al 12634486 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 ROBERT E MALM NGUYEN, LUONG TRUNG

2669 Ex Parte Sakagami et al 10814343 - (D) BENOIT 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP RICE, ELISA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Liu et al 11323786 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11355517 - (D) FETTING 101/112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PAULS, JOHN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Graw 11158639 - (D) FLOYD 112(1)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION LAURITZEN, AMANDA L

3761 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10932199 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KIDWELL, MICHELE M

KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Abd Elhamid et al 11562597 - (D) TORCZON 102/103 Brooks Kushman P.C. RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Cohen et al 10287794 - (D) WARD 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Wasilewski et al 10376863 - (D) McNAMARA 103 SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY MERCHANT & GOULD SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Utterberg et al 11124701 - (D) BAHR 103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Laroia et al 10895720 - (D) ZECHER 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ELPENORD, CANDAL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Eidson 10454291 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Cirone 11497329 - (D) FETTING 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) MAI, TRI M  

In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.   KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3661 SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester v. GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001378 6704651 09/989,558 COCKS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ENGLISH, PETER C original BEAULIEU, YONEL

wyers, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cheshire  10102174 - (D)  BISK 102 PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2198 Ex Parte Galli 09870223 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS KANG, INSUN

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11194058 - (D) GARRIS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP LAIOS, MARIA J

The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 . . . (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly").

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

1727 Ex Parte Kim 11410507 - (D) GARRIS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP MARTIN, ANGELA J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Markanthony et al 11332438 - (D) HOMERE 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. c/o CPA Global SOMERS, MARC S

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Ekudden et al 09789691 - (D) NEW 103 ERICSSON INC. WOZNIAK, JAMES S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Roth et al 10991140 - (D) ASTORINO 102 Ethicon Endo-Surgery/Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP MAI, HAO D

3751 Ex Parte de Leon et al 10632258 - (D) BARRETT 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. BAKER, LORI LYNN

leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Ede 10732063 BARRY 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC STIGLIC, RYAN M

2175 Ex Parte Mackinlay et al 10687486 COURTENAY 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. LONG, ANDREA NATAE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Covell et al 11149719 CALDWELL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WAQAS, SAAD A

2495 Ex Parte Hyppönnen 10398753 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Becker et al 11028158 BARRY 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11936846 HOFF 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD TRAN, TRANG Q

2833 Ex Parte Too et al 11687529 KRIVAK 102/103 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY

2856 Ex Parte Klosterman et al 11503334 KRIVAK 103 ABBOTT LABORATORIES ROGERS, DAVID A

2894 Ex Parte Luk et al 10751714 SAADAT 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP MONDT, JOHANNES P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Nouis 10652680 McCARTHY 102/103 McLaughlin & McLaughlin CHARLES, MARCUS

3671 Ex Parte Kormann et al 11072890 McCARTHY 103 DEERE & COMPANY TORRES, ALICIA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Do et al 11171560 GRIMES 103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Morman et al 10301664 MILLS 102 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Woehr et al 11592595 FRANKLIN 103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP MEDWAY, SCOTT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Williams et al 10103080 ADAMS 102 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP FUBARA, BLESSING M

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Oskorep 10209760 HOFF 103 103 JOHN J. OSKOREP, ESQ. LLC LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

2612 Ex Parte Moran 11376613 KRIVAK 103 103 EVERGREEN POINT CAPITAL GROUP INC. LAU, HOI CHING

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Bhan 10943756 HANLON 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY SMITH, JENNIFER A

1762 Ex Parte Sigworth et al 12077765 PRAISS 102 CHEMTURA CORPORATION CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Zondervan et al 10989565 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP SMITH, GARRETT A

2191 Ex Parte Brown et al 10454424 PERRY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHEN, QING

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Adamczyk et al 11297721 HOFF 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC SWARTHOUT, BRENT

The Federal Circuit concluded that it would have been obvious to combine (1) a mechanical device for actuating a phonograph to play back sounds associated with a letter in a word on a puzzle piece with (2) an electronic, processor-driven device capable of playing the sound associated with a first letter of a word in a book. Leapfrog Ent., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[a]ccommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices”). In reaching that conclusion, the Federal Circuit recognized that “[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Id. at 1161 (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined device was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2612 Ex Parte Yoshimura 11186880 HOFF 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. SYED, NABIL H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte CHIANG 12254461 MANTIS MERCADER 103 Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC NGUYEN, PHUONGCHI T

2833 Ex Parte Johannes 11725938 KRIVAK 102 Harrington & Smith HAMMOND, BRIGGITTE R

2833 Ex Parte Patterson et al 11582100 KRIVAK 102/103 Armstrong World Industries, inc. PATEL, HARSHAD C

2858 Ex Parte Nam et al 11285281 KRIVAK 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate Technology LLC) VELEZ, ROBERTO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Bolduc et al 09928598 SAADAT 102 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 WAHL CLIPPER CORPORATION Requester and Respondent v. KIM LAUBE Patent Owner and Appellant 95000523 6473973 COCKS 112(1)/102/103 LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS W. BEECH FOSTER, JIMMY G original WATTS, DOUGLAS D

3761 Ex Parte Lais 11449100 BONILLA 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3763 Ex Parte Bierman 11355048 BONILLA 103/obviousness-type double patenting KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3765 Ex Parte Kronenberger 11189324 KAUFFMAN 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER MORAN, KATHERINE M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Chiang et al 11155288 ADAMS 112(1) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/MannKind Corporation HALVORSON, MARK

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Garcia-Alonso et al 11815353 GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11280120 BONILLA 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

thorner, ellis, leimkuhler, ksr

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 11/324,511 DELMENDO 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Sattler et al 11/026,056 WINSOR 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SATISH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Tuma et al 10/701,367 McCOLLUM 102(b) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/530,922 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER GANEY, STEVEN J

See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.”).

AFFIRMED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Jackson 10/958,743 BONILLA 103(a) John C. McMahon EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

In any event, patent classification is not dispositive to the issue of whether Reese relates to non-analogous art. See In re Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370, 1372 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (stating that while USPTO classification may provide “some evidence of ‘non-analogy,’ … the similarities and differences in structure and function of the inventions disclosed in the references to carry far greater weight.”) (emphasis in original).

Ellis, In re, 476 F.2d 1370, 177 USPQ 526 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

As pointed out by our colleagues in Ex parte James K. Leimkuhler, 2012 WL 684058 (B.P.A.I. February 28, 2012), the KSR Supreme Court decision is relevant to the analogous prior art inquiry.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

dance, perfect web, vaidyanathan, KSR

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Carson et al 10/510,865 GAUDETTE 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

Evidence of obviousness must come from the prior art, not the applicant’s own disclosure. In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness,” the fact finder “must articulate [his or her] reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.” Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/132,658 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11/444,004 FREDMAN 102(b) Covidien EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Melzak et al 10/914,468 ROBERTSON 103(a) 103(a) DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER PHAM, LONG
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/556,322 GREEN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Trabold et al 12/016,014 OWENS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10/830,917 DANG 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2185 Ex Parte Loafman 11/778,054 JEFFERY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kataoka 11/291,129 WINSOR 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Tolbert 10/998,213 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE ELAINE

3762 Ex Parte Haller et al 11/221,095 FREDMAN 103(a) Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP (Boston Scientific) EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

chu, rice, KSR, kao

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ou-Yang 10/725,795 TIMM Dissenting SMITH 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER JOLLEY, KIRSTEN

1724 Ex Parte Shiota et al 10/436,479 SMITH 103(a) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER VAN, LUAN V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Djugash et al 10/865,261 STEPHENS 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J

2182 Ex Parte Brune et al 10/399,272 MacDONALD 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Li et al 10/404,288 SAADAT 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Ong et al 11/782,812 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Whitworth et al 11/970,885 MOHANTY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Franson et al 11/266,973 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D

3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/020,844 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/786,707 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER FORTUNA, ANA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Raikar et al 10/632,446 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Andreasson et al 10/980,040 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

2618 Ex Parte Vance 10/709,345 FRAHM 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Bossler et al 10/869,685 KAUFFMAN 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER LOUIE, WAE LENNY

In support of their contention that the additional limitations of claims 4-6 and 9 are not merely matters of design choice, Appellants cite In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). App. Br. 9-17; Reply Br. 8-17. To the contrary, Chu supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that such modifications were a matter of obvious design choice where, as here, Appellants fail to describe any difference in function between the prior art and the claims, or to identify any unexpected results attributable to the limitations of those claims. In re Chu, at 298-99 (a finding of “design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)). Further, Appellants‟ contention that the proposed modification is not merely a matter of design choice, “since there is no teaching or suggestion in the art” (App. Br. 10) is unpersuasive because the Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement for a teaching, suggestion or motivation to be in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20, 2145

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Hogg et al 10/674,914 KAUFFMAN 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 10/750,390 MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1648 Ex Parte Ertl et al 10/480,793 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP EXAMINER HILL, MYRON G

1653 Ex Parte Knize 11/387,291 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEN, BIN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Eibeck et al 11/815,723 COLAIANNI 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

Moreover, Appellants have failed to provide an adequate basis that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claim will behave in the same manner as the tested compositions. In re Kao, No. 2010-1308, 2011 WL 1832537, at *8 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011 page 17).

1747 Ex Parte Maziers 11/597,227 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

1782 Ex Parte Bertolino et al 11/203,318 PAK 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Monteleone 10/410,820 DANG 102(b) JACK SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Zuk et al 10/072,683 LUCAS 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER ARANI, TAGHI T

2478 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/244,104 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Kanevsky et al 10/609,769 DROESCH 103(a) PAUL D. GREELEY, ESQ. OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. EXAMINER WHIPKEY, JASON T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Jacobson 11/467,692 WHITEHEAD, JR. Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER BHAT, ADITYA S

2858 Ex Parte Philbrook 11/207,419 HOFF 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER PIGGUSH, AARON C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/273,679 TURNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3686 Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,024 FISCHETTI 103(a) ERIC B. MEYERTONS CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

NEW

REVERSED

1777 Ex Parte Berlin et al 10/262,349 KRATZ 112(1) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (INTEL) EXAMINER GAKH, YELENA G

2165 Ex Parte Brown et al 09/968,353 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP EXAMINER ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

1727 Ex Parte Kearl et al 11/168,712 OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALEJANDRO, RAYMOND

2168 Ex Parte Labossiere et al 10/857,172 POTHIER 102(b) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER SANDERS, AARON J

1716 Ex Parte Lenz 12/078,348 OWENS 102(b) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1767 Ex Parte Menovcik et al 11/239,606 NAGUMO 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2451 Ex Parte Mullendore et al 10/393,957 MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/102(e) HENSLEY KIM & HOLZER, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

1716 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10/902,032 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

2163 Ex Parte Olivieri et al 11/035,262 HUGHES 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

1784 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/290,812 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

1716 Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al 11/390,196 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3641 Ex Parte Eberhart et al 11/011,318 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WIGGIN AND DANA LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, STEPHEN

3727 Ex Parte Fisher 10/821,071 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R

3753 Ex Parte Lochtefeld et al 11/431,910 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES

1723 Ex Parte Voss et al 10/858,656 COLAIANNI 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

AFFIRMED

1774 Ex Parte Kelm 11/264,905 WARREN 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LEUNG, JENNIFER A

1762 Ex Parte Ma et al 11/067,436 KRATZ 112(2)/102/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1742 Ex Parte Richard 10/362,623 GUEST 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

1788 Ex Parte Saitou et al 10/921,845 COLAIANNI 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 CHANG, VICTOR S

REHEARING

DENIED

1787 Ex Parte Breese et al 11/053,962 HANLON 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

Morris, leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/052,881 KERINS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER

JOHNSON, MATTHEW A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Sakamoto et al 11/047,818 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HALL, ARTHUR O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex parte POWERS INTEGRATION, INC. 90/008,326 6,249,876 SIU 102(b) James Y. Go

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN. LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,596 JEFFERY 101/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DILLON, SAMUEL A

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Kleen 10/927,812 WINSOR 102(e) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SIM, YONG H

[T]he [US]PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 Ex Parte Laubner et al 09/966,221 KOHUT 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. MAIORANA, P.C. EXAMINER WIMER, MICHAEL C

Appellants have presented no convincing evidence that modifying Openlander’s antenna containing a prism wherein the antenna is elevated as taught by Murphy was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chick 10/884,350 HOELTER 103(a) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

NEW

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Okuda 11/050,766 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN

REHEARING

DENIED
1777 Ex Parte Gupta 11/028,114 PAK 102 PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S