thorpe, garnero

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 BETA INNOV 14399336 - (D) COTTA 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON BADIO, BARBARA P

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Backus, Alan 14723758 - (D) RANGE 103 ULMER & BERNE LLP LACHICA, ERICSON M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 HELMERICH & PAYNE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 14938523 - (D) EVANS 102/103 VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. TARKO, ASMAMAW G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 YAZAKI CORPORATION 15135612 - (D) LEE 103 41.50 103 KENEALY VAIDYA LLP GE, JIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Intel Deutschland GmbH 15350460 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC DSOUZA, JOSEPH FRANCIS A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 The Boeing Company 14938444 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Felix L. Fischer-The Boeing Company C/O Felix L. Fischer, Attorney at Law PAGHADAL, PARESH H

Product-by-process claims are generally not limited by the process used to make the product.  In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985).  However, the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.  See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969).

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

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 706.02(m) , 2113

2858 Helmut Koeck et al. 14812907 - (D) HANLON 102/103 SLATER MATSIL, LLP/INFINEON RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 FACEBOOK, INC. 14448725 - (D) DIXON 102/103 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Lawrence Epstein et al. 12792482 - (D) DOUGAL 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Brooks Kushman ACKUN, JACOB K

3793 Joachim Kahlert et al. 12515842 - (D) ADAMS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGANGA, BONIFACE N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Anthony Charles. Martin et al. 14833709 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 OTDP 41.50 112(2) MOSER TABOADA WHITE, SADIE

2646 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY 14406796 - (D) DEJMEK 102 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SOLTANZADEH, MARYAM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Backsaver International, Inc. 15678630 - (D) WIEDER 103 103 41.50 103 KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC PEDDER, DENNIS H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Rashtchian, Ayoub et al. 10633629 - (D) KATZ 103 Ballard Spahr LLP POPA, ILEANA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 American Lithium Energy Corporation 14952755 - (D) PRAISS 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MCCONNELL, WYATT P

1783 Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. 15745493 - (D) PRAISS 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. UTT, ETHAN A

1798 MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. 14884132 - (D) RANGE 102/103 ARENT FOX LLP - New York TURK, NEIL N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Kunihito Sawai et al. 14572884 - (D) BRANCH 103 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. VU, TOAN H

2144 Haramaty, Lior 14274151 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 101 Hershkovitz and Associates, PLLC TAPP, AMELIA L

2165 CBS Interactive Inc. 14954491 - (D) EVANS 101/103 Rimon PC SYED, FARHAN M

2177 Malyshev, Stanislav et al. 14554329 - (D) BELISLE 101/102/103 Shutts & Bowen LLP Steven M. Greenberg, Esq. HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
3622 Facebook. Inc. 14280137 - (D) CHUNG 101/103 Facebook/Fenwick TOKARCZYK, CHRISTOPHER B

3622 Hao, Jianxiu et al. 11495274 - (D) FETTING 103 101 VERIZON - HH VERIZON PATENTING GROUP TOKARCZYK, CHRISTOPHER B

3623 Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 14098191 - (D) ADAMS 101/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3681 MasterCard International Incorporated 14554713 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 101 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP NGUYEN, THUY N

3681 Ouimet, Kenneth J. et al. 13282322 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 PATENT LAW GROUP: Atkins and Associates P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3689 Ece Kamar et al. 12491635 - (D) BEAMER 112(1)/102 101 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Microsoft) WHITE, LANCE WILLIAM

3692 WEISS, DAVID et al. 12210826 - (D) CRAIG 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. ANDERSON, JOHN A

3692 Walmart Apollo, LLC 13632491 - (D) THOMAS 101 McCarter & English, LLP / Walmart Apollo, LLC WONG, ERIC TAK WAI

3694 Adobe Inc. 14553911 - (D) CALVE 101 SBMC ANDERSON, SCOTT C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 The Procter & Gamble Company 14331420 - (D) KERINS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY OLIVER, BRADLEY S

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 QIAGEN GmbH 14423062 - (R) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ford Global Technologies, LLC 14628754 - (R) CAPP 112(1)/112(2) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL SMITH, ISAAC G

3685 Medidata Solutions, Inc. 14140734 - (R) CRAIG 101 Steptoe & Johnson LLP NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A

garnero

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 Ex Parte Bastide et al 12826938 - (D) PINKERTON 103 Fabian Vancott IBM CORPORATION SUN, LI P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte IWAI et al 13405695 - (D) PESLAK 102/103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP SAHNI, VISHAL R

Appellants first contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a thermally sprayed layer has a specific implied structure. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants support this contention with a declaration from Appellant Makoto Souwa stating that “one [of] ordinary skill in the art would understand, a thermally sprayed layer would have a structure that closely matches the unevenness and crevices of the underlying layer.” Id. at 11 (citing Souwa Decl. dated April 7, 2014,17). Appellants, relying on In re Garnero, 412 F. 2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979), then argue that the implied structural characteristics of a thermally sprayed layer should be considered in the patentability analysis of a product by process claim.

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

3675 Ex Parte Cusack et al 13630950 - (D) HOELTER 112(2)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY NEUBAUER, THOMAS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Zhou et al 12697019 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. WEHRHEIM, LINDSEY GAIL

3775 Ex Parte Bertram 13635212 - (D) COTTA 102/103 BELZER PC BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT

3779 Ex Parte Buerk et al 13461966 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 Whitmyer IP Group LLC HENDERSON, RYAN N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Cooke et al 13299680 - (D) PESLAK 103 101 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC HULKA, JAMES R

3685 Ex Parte Weller et al 12419115 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA HALE, TIM B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Rivera 12960496 - (D) STEPINA 103 112(2) AVERILL & GREEN DUNIVER, DIALLO IGWE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hemminghaus et al 12568167 - (D) NEW 103 SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) HIRT, ERIN E

1653 Ex Parte Miller et al 13386209 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 K&L Gates LLP/Chicago BOWERS, ERIN M

1656 Ex Parte Bout et al 13002797 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Mallinckrodt LLC TSAY, MARSHA M

1673 Ex Parte Javanbakht et al 13488802 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 GrayRobinson, P.A. OLSON, ERIC

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Sureshkumar 12180650 - (D) McNEILL 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/NOVELL TRUONG, CAM Y T

2182 Ex Parte McAnally et al 13003349 - (D) BARRY 103 THE OLLILA LAW GROUP LLC NGO, CHUONG D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2458 Ex Parte Trabelsi et al 13471078 - (D) DEJMEK dissenting BAIN 101 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP PATEL, RONAK

2495 Ex Parte Bittles et al 14093246 - (D) McNEILL 103 Zehrer Patent Serviees; LEWIS, LISA C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Thoren et al 12452277 - (D) GARRIS 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC AMRANY, ADI

2844 Ex Parte LE 12054820 - (D) RANGE 112(1) 112(2)/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC YESILDAG, LAURA G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Hoedl et al 13594214 - (D) PRATS 103 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. COX, THADDEUS B

3762 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11000541 - (D) JESCHKE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

zletz, garnero

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Dressler et al 13032285 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(1)/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. MAMO, ELIAS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Cordara et al 12308882 - (D) FINK 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP LI, TRACY Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Graefe 12260053 - (D) KUMAR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, VEI CHUNG

2837 Ex Parte Florian et al 11916725 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

However, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed. Claim 1 requires a “sintered monolithic component”. That is, the plain language of the claim requires that the monolithic body be sintered. Appellants’ Specification discloses, on page 12, that

[t]he component is produced through common sintering of the layers located in the layer stack. This occurs preferably in a single processing step.

We thus interpret the claim in this manner, and note that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s claim interpretation, the claimed phrase of “wherein the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer together form a sintered monolithic component” is properly interpreted as meaning that the “sintered monolithic component” is the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer sintered together. See also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations.)

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,   2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Raschke 10933699 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 Siemens Corporation SAXENA, AKASH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Schmand et al 11532665 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Weibezahn 11858652 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VAN, LUAN V

1772 Ex Parte LEFLAIVE et al 12253382 - (D) GARRIS 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. PREGLER, SHARON

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11322608 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP DAYE, CHELCIE L

2165 Ex Parte Weinberg et al 12276009 - (D) BRANCH 103 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Ivtsenkov et al 12022982 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(2) Protective Arms Systems Inc. LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Gross 10856579 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/103 STEVEN VOSEN POUNCIL, DARNELL A

3M, hazani, garnero, seattle box, kao

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/096,820 HOUSEL 102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1742 Ex Parte Lawton et al 11/931,205 KRATZ 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER THROWER, LARRY W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 09/994,184 NAPPI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Kiuchi et al 10/730,767 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) ALPINE/BHGL EXAMINER WOZNIAK, JAMES S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Feeney et al 11/738,433 JEFFERY 103(a) JOSEPH SWAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/930,837 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) David Klein DEKEL PATENT LTD. EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Igaki 10/220,472 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Rader Fishman & Grauer EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

3734 Ex Parte Scheller et al 10/820,330 GRIMES 103(a) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

3736 Ex Parte Wollin 10/902,263 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3761 Ex Parte Lam et al 11/155,981 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte Wariar 11/345,702 GRIMES 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3656 Ex Parte 7757582 et al Ex parte SHIMANO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/011,360 11/641,905 SONG 102(b)/103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER JOHNSON, VICKY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/432,692 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Adams et al 11/158,104 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP EXAMINER SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/293,178 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) DEKEL PATENT LTD., DAVID KLEIN BEIT HAROF'IM EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Kilcoyne et al 10/896,553 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q

3765 Ex Parte Olofsson 10/761,401 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER SELF, SHELLEY M

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
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Addington et al 11/089,977 PAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ABOAGYE, MICHAEL

1774 Ex Parte Farrell 11/046,468 GARRIS 102(b) WALTER A. HACKLER, Ph.D. EXAMINER
COOLEY, CHARLES E

1774 Ex Parte Harms et al 10/539,139 FRANKLIN dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Jagadeesan et al 11/003,201 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FARAGALLA, MICHAEL A

2628 Ex Parte Witter et al 11/251,599 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER MARTELLO, EDWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Rice et al 10/282,897 PER CURIAM 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

When the term “substantially” is recited by a claim, its meaning is determined from the specification. See Seattle Box Co., v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

3674 Ex Parte Merideth et al 11/163,306 PER CURIAM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER LUGO, CARLOS

3687 Ex Parte Mazzara 10/736,491 FISCHETTI 103(a) Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. EXAMINER IWARERE, OLUSEYE

3693 Ex Parte Mathews et al 10/453,396 CRAWFORD 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/280,120 BONILLA 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” Id. If the applicant presents rebuttal evidence, such as unexpected results or that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention, the Examiner “must consider the totality of the evidence to determine whether the obviousness rejection should stand.” Id.

3775 Ex Parte Hazebrouck et al 11/241,461 LEE 112(1)/102/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

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