unigene, comiskey, cybersource

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Neubardt 11/091,089 SCHEINER 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF LEO ZUCKER EXAMINER FOLEY, SHANON A

1651 Ex Parte Tyszka et al 11/009,901 PRATS 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

Thus, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1656 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/187,394 SCHEINER 103(a) OCCHIUTI ROHLICEK & TSAO, LLP EXAMINER CARLSON, KAREN C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Linden et al 10/501,225 ROBERTSON 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1781 Ex Parte Horiuchi et al 10/537,493 PRATS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Hamann et al 11/519,393 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. EXAMINER KIM, KIHO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,700 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Hodes 10/788,532 DROESCH 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 ALAN S. HODES EXAMINER HASAN, SYED HAROON

Our reviewing courts have “refused to find processes patentable when they merely claimed a mental process standing alone and untied to another category of statutory subject matter even when a practical application was claimed.” In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc); accord CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2161 Ex Parte Rabaioli 10/381,808 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Sheffield et al 11/945,082 BROWN 103(a) 103(a) Parks IP Law LLC EXAMINER WOOD, KIMBERLY T

3685 Ex Parte Bly et al 09/990,911 BARRY 101/112(2) 101/103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC EXAMINER NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A

3693 Ex Parte Subbu et al 10/781,805 LORIN 103(a) 101 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Jimenez 10/444,136 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, LAURA MICHELLE
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3619 Ex Parte 6325414 et al ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ 95/001,011 90/008,348 SONG 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner: BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requester: BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON, & LIONE EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER TO, TOAN C

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex Parte 6373537 et al Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Third Party Requester: BRUCE L. LAGERMAN EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3712 Ex Parte 6,546,924 et al Ex parte ProBatter Sports, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/010,151 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) 112(1) FOR PATENT OWNER: GRIMES & BATTERSBY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WOODARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY MCNETT & HENRY LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Abraham 10/995,061 FRANKLIN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

1652 Ex Parte Koeberl et al 10/761,530 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

1653 Ex Parte Consigny et al 11/170,750 ADAMS 112(1) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER FORD, ALLISON M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Johansson 10/558,832 PAK 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1763 Ex Parte Bernard et al 11/300,995 WARREN 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-AI N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/186,701 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) C/O AMY PATTILLO EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2185 Ex Parte Gold et al 10/684,001 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2186 Ex Parte Alderegula et al 11/124,745 LUCAS 103(a) IBM (RPS-BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DUDEK JR, EDWARD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Renbarger 10/837,807 PETRAVICK 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

vogel, cybersource

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Haldar et al 11/290,715 GREEN 103(a) Attn: William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER BERRIOS, JENNIFER A

1648 Ex Parte Kyle 11/449,829 SCHEINER 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER LUCAS, ZACHARIAH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/341,355 SMITH 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

1732 Ex Parte Frenzel et al 10/539,781 KATZ 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/319,093 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

1778 Ex Parte Dal Maso et al 10/994,405 SMITH 103(a) Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1788 Ex Parte Weiner et al 11/089,435 TIMM 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte MacHeffner 10/915,496 COURTENAY 103(a) MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 10/491,429 SCHAFER 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp 11/185,701 McCARTHY 101/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

A rejection for anticipation-type double patenting requires a “two-way analysis:” two claims do not claim the same invention if one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . . . 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06
3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp et al 11/185,702 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3767 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12/043,861 6,569,118 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) STEPHEN A GRATTON EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Loch et al 10/103,426 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/738,536 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/782,687 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

1732 Ex Parte McInnes et al 11/526,462 HANLON 103(a) 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER QIAN, YUN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Strang 10/673,506 HOFF 103(a) 101 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SIEK, VUTHE

2857 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/786,980 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 103(a) General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LE, JOHN H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Velikyan et al 10/552,206 McCOLLUM 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte DeBiccari et al 11/019,871 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1724 Ex Parte Aigner et al 10/478,751 ROBERTSON 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1724 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/776,223 WARREN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11/242,908 SMITH 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1763 Ex Parte Evers 12/166,534 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/264,876 BARRY 101/102(e) LNG/LSI Joint Customer Number C/O Luedeka, Neely & Graham, P.C. EXAMINER PHAN, THAI Q

"[R]egardless of what statutory category ('process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim's language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patenteligibility purposes." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 11/037,786 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Borgerding et al 11/362,548 HORNER 103(a) Hildebrand, Christa Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Libby et al 10/612,782 KIM 103(a) Mr. Tim F. Williams Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

3742 Ex Parte Chenier et al 10/651,949 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) SMART & BIGGAR EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

3779 Ex Parte Dalle et al 10/483,220 ASTORINO 103(a) LEVINE & MANDELBAUM EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

cybersource

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Charneau et al 11/250,616 PRATS 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF SALVATORE ARRIGO AND SCOTT LEE, LLP EXAMINER BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Rudolf et al 10/334,806 BLANKENSHIP 112(2)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Kao et al 10/661,793 JEFFERY 102(e) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Cook et al 10/942,569 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Hallman 11/186,649 HORNER 103(a) Floyd B. Carothers CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3768 Ex Parte 7734325 et al CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. CARESTREAM HEALTH, INC. Patent Owner 95/001,379 SONG 103(a) EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER GUPTA, VANI

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2613 Ex Parte 7369772 et al Inter Partes FUJITSU LIMITED Requestor, Appellant v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,485 EASTHOM 102/103 For Patent Owner: Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto For Third Party Requester: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLPEXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SEDIGHIAN, REZA
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Faunce et al 10/955,742 SMITH 103(a) Steven W. Roth IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LE, HUNG D

2166 Ex Parte Turba et al 10/293,780 KOHUT 102(e) UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B

2177 Ex Parte Wolfston et al 10/890,881 DESHPANDE 103(a) MICHAEL O. SCHEINBERG EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Fano et al 10/826,227 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) Vedder Price PC EXAMINER PENG, FRED H

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Kaus et al 10/488,433 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a)/101 Daniel J Piotrowski
US Philips Corporation EXAMINER VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Bayne 11/871,992 FISCHETTI 103(a) ANTHONY JEREMIAH BAYNE EXAMINER DASS, HARISH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Emori 10/697,157 SAINDON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER LIM, SENG HENG
REHEARING

GRANTED

2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H

Furthermore, and separately, in CyberSource our reviewing Court stated that “[r]egardless of what statutory category (‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

o'farrell, wiseman, jung, abele, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Rao et al 11/170,331 ZECHER 103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN

2161 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 11/317,216 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A

2186 Ex Parte Dunshea et al 11/006,127 BARRY 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Michaud et al 10/856,534 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L

3689 Ex Parte Kruk et al 10/279,188 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Tak et al 10/837,390 HORNER 103(a) PEACOCK MYERS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Imamatsu 10/705,437 CHEN 102(a) 102(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER YAARY, MICHAEL D
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte McSwiggen et al 10/720,448 FREDMAN 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

O’Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). O’Farrell identifies two kinds of error. In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful…. In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1633 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11/449,125 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

There is no dispute that the difference in starting material shape dictates the resulting nanoparticle shape. In the Wiseman case, the discovery of a new function did not render Wiseman’s disc brakes nonobvious, and the inherent difference in shape here is similarly insufficient. “[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11/078,735 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Cetel et al 11/284,612 TIMM 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AUSTIN, AARON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Murray 11/092,866 HOMERE 103(a) TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Karamchedu et al 10/635,184 COURTENAY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (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 . . . .”).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gillaspy et al 10/947,417 HOELTER 101/103(a) Keohane & D'Alessandro EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

Our reviewing court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) held that a claim directed to the steps of calculating and displaying was not statutory stating that “[t]his claim presents no more than the calculation of a number and display of the result, albeit in a particular format” (Id. at 908-09). Appellants’ claim 1 does not even include the displaying step recited in Abele’s rejected claim. See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test” and that “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”)

Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST Concurring WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T