fallaux

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bloom et al 10/987,346 DESHPANDE 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 10/132,639 MacDONALD 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Liang 11/304,325 BAHR 103(a) WEI TE CHUNG FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER CHIN, PAUL T
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Stomp et al 10/677,441 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER ZHENG, LI

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant’s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities. Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER LAM, ANN Y

fallaux, richardson-vicks, bayer4

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Boehm 12/026,567 ADAMS 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Yadav et al 11/808,766 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER YOON, TAE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Buda et al 10/359,218 KRIVAK 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER HAILE, FEBEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chamberlain et al 11/349,019 CLARKE 103(a) W. ALLEN MARCONTELL EXAMINER RAMSEY, JEREMY C

3641 Ex Parte Rednikov 10/544,358 SPAHN 102(b) Valeriy Rednikov EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P

3665 Ex Parte Dwyer et al 11/112,796 O’NEILL 103(a) HONEYWELL/IFL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3682 Ex Parte Koether et al 11/156,862 CRAWFORD 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Koch 10/477,301 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kostansek et al 11/131,615 McCOLLUM 103(a) CHUI, MEI PING ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER CHUI, MEI PING

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Lester et al 11/197,010 RUGGIERO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Hasse 10/987,654 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) NGUYEN, CHI Q Hasse & Nesbitt LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte MacDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS, LLC Appellant 90/008,004 6,966,259 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JOHN L. CORDANI CARMODY & TORRANCE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL S. MARCUS, ESQ. DICKSTEIN SHARPIRO LLP EXAMINER PEIKARI, BEHZAD
REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Goode 10/345,836 6,173,769 BAHR 251 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP EXAMINER BATES, ZAKIYA W
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hong 10/038,312 LUCAS 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, TING ZHOU

1618 Ex Parte Bolle et al 10/515,698 SCHEINER 103(a)/nonstatutory double patenting NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

Nevertheless, as the Examiner correctly points out, the fact “[t]hat both applications share a common filing date is not a grounds for withdrawing a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection” (Ans. 9). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c)(3). Even if patents granted on the two applications were set to expire on the same date, unjustified timewise extension is not the only concern addressed by the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. “[T]here is a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting - harassment by multiple assignees.” In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1319, (Fed. Cir. 2009).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Li et al 11/690,713 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1796 Ex Parte Gronsveld et al 11/041,554 WALSH 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Tanner 11/120,027 FREDMAN 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L

2173 Ex Parte Ubillos 11/652,277 DESHPANDE 102(e) APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2196 Ex Parte Kataoka 10/632,178 MACDONALD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CAO, DIEM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Jordan 10/337,137 GONSALVES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - PIP Law LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Jordan et al 11/372,312 GREENHUT 103(a) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Polesuk 10/072,528 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Philip M. Weiss, Esq. Weiss & Weiss EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

The ultimate determination of whether an invention is obvious is a legal question based on the totality of the evidence. Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . 716.01(d)
3782 Ex Parte Chertkow et al 11/063,058 HOELTER 103(a)/112(1) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F

Further, Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) provides that it is obvious to try a compound from a finite and easily traversed number of options that were narrowed down from a larger set of possibilities by the prior art.

REHEARING

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Bedoukian 10/949,129 PRATS 103(a) George W. Rauchfuss, Jr. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P

NEW

REVERSED

2183 Ex Parte Alsup et al 10/726,902 HUGHES 103(a) MHKKG / GLOBALFOUNDRIES EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2442 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/690,125 GONSALVES 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3621 Ex Parte Burkholder 11/437,111 FISCHETTI 103(a) TI Law Group EXAMINER OBEID, MAMON A

1763 Ex Parte Durrant 11/188,066 MILLS 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2443 Ex Parte Henrie 11/546,488 POTHIER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

3716 Ex Parte Leen et al 11/335,210 BARRETT 103(a) CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED

2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,582 ZECHER 102(e) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

1616 Ex Parte Edwards et al 11/523,914 WALSH 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting Elmore Patent Law Group EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA


1626 Ex Parte Fischer et al 11/789,737 ADAMS 103(a) BASF Corporation EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE

2179 Ex Parte Fu 10/644,948 POTHIER 112(2)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

1628 Ex Parte Holen et al 11/169,512 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

2628 Ex Parte Kujawa et al 11/132,124 RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E

3716 Ex Parte Leen et al 11/335,253 BARRETT obviousness-type double patenting/101/103(a) CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

1772 Ex Parte Suganuma et al 10/138,559 PAK 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

3724 Ex Parte Sussmeier et al 11/286,036 MOHANTY 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

2448 Ex Parte Uliano et al 10/113,544 GONSALVES 112(1)/103(a) Thomas & Karceski, P.C. EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

DISMISSED

3684 Ex Parte Pullman 10/159,344 Shaw RCE Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

2629 Ex Parte Simon 11/306,229 SHAW RCE Vedder Price PC EXAMINER BOYD, JONATHAN A

3M, hazani, garnero, van ornum, fallaux

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan 10/738,403 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LEE, JOHN W

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Polnyi et al 11/648,470 DROESCH 102(a) WEI TE CHUNG EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Saieg et al 10/916,127 SPAHN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

If the words of limitation can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process used to obtain it, then the limitation is commonly interpreted in its structural sense. See, e.g., 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[E]ven words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process of manufacture are commonly and by default interpreted in their structural sense….”); Hazani v. U.S. Int’l. Trade Com’n., 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims to a plate having a “chemically engraved” surface are best characterized as pure product claims, since the “chemically engraved” limitation, read in context, describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 278-79 (CCPA 1969) (noting that past-tense verbs such as “ ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded,’ all … at one time or another have been separately held capable of construction as structural, rather than process, limitations.”).

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Blackmon et al 11/116,626 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LOONAN, ERIC T

“Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1631 XDx, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of SOURCE PRECISION MEDICINE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,032 6,964,850 LEBOVITZ 103(a) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION C/O INTELLEVATE FOR PATENT OWNER: SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Hubbell et al 10/650,509 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER LANKFORD JR, LEON B

We are also not persuaded that common ownership is a requirement for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. As stated in MPEP § 804 ¶ I.A., “[d]ouble patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity, or by a different inventive entity having a common inventor, and/or by a common assignee/owner” (emphasis added).
...

This policy is supported by the decision in In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982), in which the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a patent with a common inventor, despite a lack of common ownership. The court reasoned there that the concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention outweighed the applicant‟s inability to proffer a terminal disclaimer tying together ownership of the application and conflicting patent. Id. at 944-48.

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant‟s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities.

Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . 804, 804.02
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte D'URSO et al 11/463,940 TIMM 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE +QUIGG LLP/UTB EXAMINER EMPIE, NATHAN H

1726 Ex Parte Sherman et al 10/707,229 NAGUMO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) EDWARD YOO C/O BENNETT JONES LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, BEN

1783 Ex Parte Thrush 11/105,182 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT D. FISH FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/000,108 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER DOBSON, DANIEL G

2622 Ex Parte Altice 10/751,440 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Treyz Law Group EXAMINER CHEN, CHIA WEI A

2628 Ex Parte Chu et al 11/220,145 SAADAT 103(a) IBM (RPS-BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Brooker 10/969,357 WARREN 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER CONSILVIO, MARK J

NEW

REVERSED

2171 Ex Parte Balinsky 11/190,249 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D

1726 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/664,157 WARREN 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K

3718 Ex Parte Limback et al 10/443,612 O’NEILL 102(b) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

2625 Ex Parte Sprague et al 10/308,550 BAUMEISTER 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K

AFFIRMED

1783 Ex Parte Hoolhorst et al 11/463,927 GARRIS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SIMONE, CATHERINE A

2454 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/425,408 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, CHIRAG R

3763 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/898,334 SCHEINER 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

REHEARING

1762 Ex Parte Bacher et al 10/618,936 PAK 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE