SEARCH

Showing posts with label PPG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PPG. Show all posts

Thursday, February 15, 2018

PPG, de lajarte

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Lee et al 12240396 - (D) WILSON 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Wu et al 13996280 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson DEMOSKY, PATRICK E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Shirakawa et al 12076599 - (D) DEJMEK 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. PIZIALI, JEFFREY J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte SAJIMA 13906493 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP SIMMS JR, JOHN ELLIOTT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Bruck et al 14045818 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Green 14165076 - (D) NEWMAN 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Cator et al 13636254 - (D) PRAISS 102/103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP LEFF, STEVEN N

 The claim term “consisting essentially of’ is used to indicate, for example, that “the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant bears the burden of: (1) showing the basic and novel characteristics of their claimed invention, and (2) establishing how those characteristics would be materially changed by any allegedly excluded component of an applied reference. See In re DeLajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873 74 (CCPA 1964). 

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.03 2163

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964) 2111.03 2163

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Bogdany et al 13425509 - (D) BUSCH 103 Keohane & D'Alessandro ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte KITAJIMA 14100103 - (D) SHIANG 103 MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP CHEN, ZHITONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3668 Ex Parte ELIE et al 14693597 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL TROOST, AARON L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Masse et al 13151155 - (D) CALVE 103 Joel G. Landau Aerojet Rocketdyne GOYAL, ARUN

3742 Ex Parte Morrow et al 14026492 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

3778 Ex Parte Schonbeck et al 14265714 - (D) WOOD 103/OTDP THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY VASAT, PETER S

Thursday, December 21, 2017

crystal, PPG

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Peyman 14160174 - (D) NEW 103 The Law Office of Patrick F. 0"Reilly III, LLC POPA, ILEANA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Ancliffe et al 13821271 - (D) DENNETT 103 The Linde Group AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Kaehler et al 12241775 - (D) PYONIN 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. MINCEY, JERMAINE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Meis et al 13744409 - (D) OSINSKI 103 Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company PHAM, TUONGMINH NGUYEN

3775 Ex Parte Imwinkelried et al 13213213 - (D) NEW 112(1)/103 Baker & Hostetler T T P WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

The transitional term “comprising” “creates a presumption that the recited elements are only a part of the device, [and] that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.” Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

However, the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of’ typically:

[P]recedes a list of ingredients in a composition claim or a series of steps in a process claim. By using the term “consisting essentially of,” the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention. A “consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a “consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a “comprising” format.

PPG, 156 F.3d at 1354.

Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1953 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2111.03

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.03 2163

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Goedeke et al 13968044 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1) 103 TAYLOR IP, P.C. WEI, ZHONGQING

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chen et al 13418163 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 Fabian Vancott IBM CORPORATION EDWARDS, JAMES A

2486 Ex Parte Kanaujia et al 13843455 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 103 Muir Patent Law, PLLC NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Goldberg et al 12296201 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Lenn et al 13202780 - (D) NEW 103 GlaxoSmithKline SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Corbett 13482429 - (D) BUI 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. NGUYEN, LUU-PHUONG T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Pfeffer et al 11681774 - (D) FRAHM 103 STRAUB & POKOTYLO ALATA, YASSIN

2468 Ex Parte Atreya et al 12775816 - (D) SHIANG 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP YANG, ZHAOHUI

2477 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12700476 - (D) PYONIN 103 Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC ESMAEILIAN, MAJID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Knapp 14305456 - (D) HEANEY 103 Matheson Keys Daffer & Kordzik PLLC YANG, AMY X

2896 Ex Parte Wigglesworth et al 14189550 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER KALAM, ABUL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Ness et al 13045359 - (D) GUIJT 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA POON, PETER M

3643 Ex Parte Silva et al 13747784 - (D) GUIJT 112(1) 103 Parsons Behle & Latimer POON, PETER M

3691 Ex Parte Gupta et al 12257453 - (D) CRAWFORD 101 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Equifax, Inc. KAZIMI, HANI M

3691 Ex Parte Jones et al 10676297 - (D) BAYAT 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD VYAS, ABHISHEK

3692 Ex Parte OLSSON et al 12825691 - (D) BENNETT 101 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WONG, ERIC TAK WAI

3693 Ex Parte Ginsburg et al 13096186 - (D) MEYERS 101 Garlick & Markison (IH) BORLINGHAUS, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Markwald et al 13188007 - (D) WIEDER 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP KELLER, BRIAN D

3742 Ex Parte Powell 12515840 - (D) STEPINA 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC PAIK, SANG YEOP

3745 Ex Parte Boning et al 12812499 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

3745 Ex Parte Klimes 12845151 - (D) HORNER 112(4)/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP LOPEZ, FRANK D

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Garg et al 13518193 - (D) SAADAT 103 Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

Monday, March 11, 2013

janakirama, PPG

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Satoyoshi et al 11322407 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. CORMIER, DAVID G

1716 Ex Parte Lee et al 11459575 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CHANDRA, SATISH

The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” has long been understood to “open[] the claims to the inclusion of ingredients which would not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of appellant’s compositions as defined in the balance of the claim.” In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954 (CCPA 1963). As subsequent decisions have made clear, the specification must be consulted to determine whether the applicant “defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Janakirama-Rao, In re, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ 893 (CCPA 1963) 2111.03, 2163

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.03, 2163

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Rioux et al 11316501 - (D) SCHEINER 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3777 Ex Parte Huo et al 11414759 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Carestream Health, Inc. BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Spartiotis et al 11226877 - (D) DIXON 103 112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON LEE, SHUN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Boric-Lubecke et al 10156817 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/102/103 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Schilling et al 10965349 - (D) PAK 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Marx et al 10765410 - (D) KRIVAK 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) LE, DEBBIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Bowman et al 11491861 - (D) PAK 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

3779 Ex Parte Yokoi et al 11702871 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

Friday, August 5, 2011

comaper, clay, wyers, PPG, borkowski2, hammack, zurko

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/581,000 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1735 Ex Parte FOODY, Sr. 11/769,850 GAUDETTE 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1776 Ex Parte KEE et al 11/834,803 GAUDETTE 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Caruba et al 11/165,937 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6428542 et al 95/000,446 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

3731 Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 95/000,451 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C.EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “is essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of claim language.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The “purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

PPG Ind. v. Guardian Ind., 75 F.3d 1558, 37 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . 2164.06(b)

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/757,775 FREDMAN 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1655 Ex Parte Bortlik et al 10/568,704 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mazur et al 11/104,120 GAUDETTE 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/385,897 BARRY 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11/057,815 KIM 103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

DISMISSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 10/572,655 VIGNONE RCE Thomas Langer Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane EXAMINER LAM, CATHY N

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

herz, PPG, de lajarte, hoffman, finisar

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/12/2011 2854 Ex Parte Petermann 10/733,484 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER FERGUSON SAMRETH, MARISSA LIANA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/12/2011 3657 Ex Parte Davison et al 11/166,388 HORNER 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/12/2011 3767 Ex Parte Dolliver et al 10/787,849 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1617 Ex Parte Martin 11/914,485 GREEN 103(a) FMC CORPORATION EXAMINER BUCKLEY, AUDREA

The “phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ limits the scope of a claim to the specified ingredients and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a composition.” In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis added); see also PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir 1998). Appellant bears the burden of establishing that the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention would be materially affected by, or at least reasonably expected to be materially affected by, any component or step of an applied reference that is argued to be excluded by a “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase used in the claims. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/13/2011 3993 Ex parte BioCybernetics International, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,605 6,213,968 LANE 103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Cf. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 2011 WL 2307402 at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2011) (holding, based on expert testimony, that prior apparatuses taught away from the claimed apparatus because they improved a certain parameter in a different way).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/13/2011 1761 Ex Parte Brooker et al 11/329,008 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/13/2011 2123 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11/235,344 ZECHER 101/102(b) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

See Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“For computer-implemented means-plus-function claims where the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to implement an algorithm, "the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm") (citations and quotation marks omitted.). As such, the application must disclose “enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6” or a disclosure that can be expressed in any understandable terms (e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart). Id. But “[s]imply reciting "software" without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function is not enough.” Id. at 1341-42 (citation omitted).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/13/2011 3743 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/451,340 O’NEILL 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING

REHEARING

GRANTED - REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/13/2011 1645 Ex Parte Degelaen et al 10/170,343 GREEN 103(a) Butzel Long EXAMINER ZEMAN, ROBERT A

Monday, April 25, 2011

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER
WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

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

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J