cyclobenzaprine, boehringer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Claret 11874838 - (D) JENKS 112(1) Parker Highlander PLLC QIAN, CELINE X

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Darago et al 10609325 - (D) BUI 103 OGILVIE LAW FIRM HOANG, HIEU T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Blyth et al 10565094 - (D) TIMM 103 SALIWANCHIK, LLOYD & EISENSCHENK CHWASZ, JADE R

2899 Ex Parte Hwang et al 11170486 - (D) GARRIS 102(b)/103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC MONTALVO, EVA Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Johnson 10500179 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. SANTIAGO, LUIS F

3657 Ex Parte Beri 10595350 - (D) SCANLON 102(b)/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. BURCH, MELODY M

3672 Ex Parte In T Hout 11572464 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Foley & Lardner LLP KRECK, JOHN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Mershin et al 11639372 - (D) MURPHY 103 103 ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

See In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride, 676 F. 3d 1063, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Evidence that others tried but failed to develop a claimed invention may carry significant weight in an obviousness inquiry. "While absolute certainty is not necessary to establish a reasonable expectation of success, there can be little better evidence negating an expectation of success than actual reports of failure." Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir.2003).

HARMON 6: 84, 347
DONNER 8: 1073; 10: 910-18

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Borovsky 11294790 - (D) MILLS 102(b) 102(b)/103 Wolfe-SBMC ELL, MATTHEW

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Erickson et al 12779489 - (D) BUSCH 102(b) 102(b)/103 MOSER TABOADA / VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2897 Ex Parte Clevenger et al 12206314 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 102(b)/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP TOLEDO, FERNANDO L

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Smith et al 11245758 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX ZERVIGON, RUDY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Sprosts et al 11635921 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP LANIER,BENJAMIN E

2442 Ex Parte Campbell 11656770 - (D) HUME 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SURVILLO, OLEG

2456 Ex Parte Kim et al 11787425 - (D) KRIVAK 102(b) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. CHANG, TOM Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte SUNG et al 11939172 - (D) COURTENAY 102(b)/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MAPA, MICHAEL Y

2671 Ex Parte Condon et al 11135677 - (D) BONILLA 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP DEMETER, HILINA K

2687 Ex Parte Tomasson et al 11620208 - (D) STRAUSS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL TUN, NAY L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Jeon 11473747 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BGL BANNAN, JULIE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Schmelter et al 12285584 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 WALTER OTTESEN HOOK, JAMES F

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
3307 Ex parte SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION 90011817 5,158,377 07/620,411 KOHUT 103 STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP For Third Party Requester: Glory South Software Manufacturing Inc. Alston & Bird LLP RALIS, STEPHEN J original WIECKING, DAVID

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 2624 COGNEX CORPORATION AND COGNEX TECHNOLOGY & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND MVTEC SOFTWARE GMBH AND MVTEC, LLC, Intervenors. 2011-1098 7,016,539 09/114,335 7,065,262 10/705,563 LINN noninfringement Proskauer Rose LLP; United States International Trade Commission; Foley & Lardner, LLP KIM, CHONG R; MARIAM, DANIEL G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC (formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.), Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Intervenor. 2012-1535 6,370,566 09/058,679 RADER asserted claims valid and domestic industry requirement satisfied Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; United States International Trade Commission; Sidley Austin, LLP TRAN, PHILIP B

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

mayo, bilski, pitney bowes, boehringer, corkill, maziere, mentor, merck2, pharmastem, susi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M

3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...

See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA

1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N

2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN

The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

Appellant argues that

MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:

The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...

  Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.

Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)

3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD

boehringer, stencel

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Pilgaard et al 10/490,278 McCOLLUM 103(a) COLOPLAST A/S EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Trossman et al 10/947,768 DILLON 103(a)/101 LEE LAW, PLLC IBM CUSTOMER NUMBER EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2448 Ex Parte Brownholtz et al 10/894,526 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

2478 Ex Parte Barda 10/836,520 CHEN 102(b) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER ALI, FARHAD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Coss et al 10/094,550 KRIVAK 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/794,334 WALSH 103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER WHALEY, PABLO S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Asaro et al 10/074,064 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) VEDDER PRICE P.C. EXAMINER MYERS, PAUL R

2185 Ex Parte Challener et al 11/068,322 DESHPANDE 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/457,908 FRAHM 103(a) 101 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. BOX IBM EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Balzer et al 11/480,618 BAHR 103(a) 103(a) MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC AND FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Weers et al 10/751,342 WALSH 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NOVARTIS EXAMINER CARTER, KENDRA D

1644 Ex Parte Peritt et al 11/018,240 McCOLLUM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SKELDING, ZACHARY S

1645 Ex Parte Chu 11/325,556 FRANKLIN 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER GANGLE, BRIAN J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Breese 10/774,161 GARRIS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Raith et al 11/098,292 DESHPANDE 102(b)/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D

2172 Ex Parte Schmitt 10/854,170 COURTENAY 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D

Appellant’s argued limitation of “performing a query on a database for determining names of one or more predefined parameter sets for the customization object” (claim 1) does not positively recite that any parameter set names are actually determined. Our reviewing court guides that “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Willins et al 11/137,003 HAHN 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER LAI, DANIEL

2618 Ex Parte Perlman 10/395,749 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. BEREZNAK EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Hirotsu 10/719,321 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

3788 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11/132,964 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE WEINTRAUB GROUP, P.L.C. EXAMINER PICKETT, JOHN G
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163