Friday December 31, 2010

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

1731 Ex Parte Taylor et al 10/971,211 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) SALLY J. BROWN AUTOLIV ASP, INC. EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

2123 Ex Parte Grayson 10/793,161 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R 

“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

3695 Ex Parte Monk et al 10/690,394 CRAWFORD 101/102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER HAVAN, THU THAO 

Here, similar to Benson, concluding that the claimed subject matter is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 would effectively pre-empt performing the various steps by any means, and in practical effect would be a patent on the idea of detecting fraud in relation to stored value products. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498, 507 (1874) quoted in In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106 

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

AFFIRMED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

1657 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/483,930 SPIEGEL 101/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

1716 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 11/072,521 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N 

1773 Ex Parte Blouin et al 10/007,031 COLAIANNI 102(b) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

2448 Ex Parte Janniello et al 09/938,147 STEPHENS 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

2874 Ex Parte Guttmann et al 10/399,938 EASTHOM 112(1)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER KIM, ELLEN E 

REHEARING DENIED 

2600 Communications 

2626 Ex Parte Karavansky 10/640,992 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(b)/103(a) Sviatoslav Karavansky EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS

multiform, altiris, langmyr, gottschalk,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Blume et al 10/790,658 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA 

Ex Parte Gall et al 11/337,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BLUMEL, BENJAMIN P 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Megerle et al 10/282,370 WARREN Concurring OWENS 103(a) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M 

Ex Parte Turi et al 10/938,079 KIMLIN 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Papanyan et al 10/601,353 SIU 102(e) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N 

Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd. , 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Howard et al 10/404,583 JEFFERY 103(a) AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R 

Ex Parte Curry et al 09/683,995 LUCAS 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL DRYJA EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Cutler et al 10/184,499 HOFF 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION C/O LYON & HARR, LLP EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR 

Ex Parte Pettinato 11/043,229 BARRETT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER HUYNH, CHUCK 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Walker et al 10/232,647 LORIN 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ghercioiu et al 10/283,548 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert, & Goetzel PC EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN 

“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/577,938 HAHN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/061,354 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD 

Nominal recitations of structure in an otherwise ineligible method fail to make the method a statutory process. Ex parte Langmyr, 89 USPQ2d 1988, 1996 (BPAI 2008) (informative) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kennedy 10/662,599 STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 90/007,189 6,166,667 LEE 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

cochrane, diamond1, gottschalk,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Imachi et al 11091368 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER RHEE, JANE J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Clinton 10179624 BARRETT 112(2)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON D 

Ex Parte Nightingale et al 10142148 DANG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K 

Ex Parte Sattler et al 11026052 DIXON 101/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER CHOI, MICHELE C 

“A process is . . . an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.” Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1877). “‘Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.’” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972)). 

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Hellerstein et al 09731937 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte McMullin 10607127 DANG 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D