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
Showing posts with label donaldson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label donaldson. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
donaldson, aristocrat, WMS, lindberg, sasse, cont'l paper bag
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte McCormick et al 11613766 - (D) SMITH 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC MOHADDES, LADAN
1772 Ex Parte Strack et al 11178037 - (D) PAK 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY NGUYEN, TAM M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Landers et al 11470825 - (D) SMITH 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Redel et al 11298779 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Oesterling et al 11206957 - (D) REIMERS 112(2)/103 103 Dierker & Associates, P.C. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Supp. Ans. 3-43 (citing In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[I]f one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.”)). For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338.
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Liebermann 10718023 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. ELISCA, PIERRE E
3742 Ex Parte Foster et al 11693143 - (D) CAPP 103 102/103 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Main) TRAN, THIEN S
3765 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11627792 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Michael J. Fitzpatrick ANDERSON, AMBER R
3773 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 11775079 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Fetissova et al 11611701 - (D) SCHEINER 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY MELLER, MICHAEL V
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Fernihough et al 11869048 - (D) WARREN 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P
1715 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10691319 - (D) SCHAFER 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
1761 Ex Parte Trevino et al 12338014 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE
1761 Ex Parte Trueman et al 11820613 - (D) SMITH 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DIGGS, TANISHA
1765 Ex Parte Kurth et al 11042972 - (D) HOUSEL 103 112(1) PRICE HENEVELD LLP COONEY, JOHN M
1765 Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11508772 - (D) GARRIS 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA
1784 Ex Parte Morita et al 11976246 - (D) LORIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LANGMAN, JONATHAN C
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Smilowitz et al 11483441 - (D) DILLON 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE LLP HOPE, DARRIN
2173 Ex Parte McLean et al 11560224 - (D) DILLON 103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE HOPE, DARRIN
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Farr et al 10831034 - (D) SMITH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C
2442 Ex Parte Jung et al 10816364 - (D) ANDERSON 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SURVILLO, OLEG
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Moreb 11260437 - (D) HUGHES 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC CAMARGO, MARLY S.B.
The record reflects that it is common sense that a surveillance audio/video system be portable. See In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 735 (CCPA 1952) (Portability of a claimed device is insufficient to patentably distinguish the device over an otherwise old (known) device unless there are new or unexpected results.).
Lindberg, In re, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) 2144.04
2695 Ex Parte Kim et al 11038028 - (D) WARD 112(1)/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP GIESY, ADAM
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Dai 11068225 - (D) WARD 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Akhmeteli et al 11517915 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. KREINER, MICHAEL B
In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980) (when the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable, and the appellant must rebut this presumption with a preponderance of evidence).
Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980) 716.07, 2121, 2121.02
3664 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11051383 - (D) ASTORINO 103 ABB Inc. MANCHO, RONNIE M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Beck et al 11407714 - (D) GREENHUT 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES
It has long been understood that invention is not confined to the particular form or mode described. See, e.g., Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908).
Friday, February 17, 2012
aoyama, golight, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, larson, default proof, prater, biomedino, donaldson
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B
2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M
3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.
Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH
1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R
1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P
1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181
Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that
[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B
2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M
3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.
Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH
1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R
1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P
1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181
Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that
[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Dossel, Donaldson
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Arndt et al 10/939,803 TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Laudato et al 11/695,742 KIM 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R
3688 Ex Parte Warren et al 11/557,758 PETRAVICK 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Kropf et al 10/597,847 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP EXAMINER WOLF, MEGAN YARNALL
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Mleziva et al 11/303,029 HASTINGS 112(1) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER CHRISS, JENNIFER A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Saurer et al 10/512,275 BAHR 112(2)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) RONALD E. GREIGG GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R
As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), [a]lthough paragraph six statutorily provides that one may use means-plus-function language in a claim, one is still subject to the requirement that a claim “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Therefore, if one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.
Dossel, In re, 115 F.3d 942, 42 USPQ2d 1881 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Arndt et al 10/939,803 TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Laudato et al 11/695,742 KIM 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R
3688 Ex Parte Warren et al 11/557,758 PETRAVICK 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Kropf et al 10/597,847 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP EXAMINER WOLF, MEGAN YARNALL
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Mleziva et al 11/303,029 HASTINGS 112(1) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER CHRISS, JENNIFER A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Saurer et al 10/512,275 BAHR 112(2)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) RONALD E. GREIGG GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R
As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), [a]lthough paragraph six statutorily provides that one may use means-plus-function language in a claim, one is still subject to the requirement that a claim “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Therefore, if one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.
Dossel, In re, 115 F.3d 942, 42 USPQ2d 1881 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)