diamond2, sterling, miller2, gulack, ngai

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Slungaard et al 10/427,271 GRIMES 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1641 Ex Parte Chandler et al 11/027,652 WALSH 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Saha et al 11/392,381 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Latorse et al 10/553,363 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

See e.g., In re Diamond, 360 F.2d 214, 217 (CCPA 1966) (affirming obviousness where the evidence showed that synergy was expected because combined drugs targeted different cellular mechanisms, and no evidence to the contrary was produced).

1619 Ex Parte Bush 10/759,970 HASTINGS 103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1628 Ex Parte Rau 11/263,976 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steven B. Kelber Berenato & White, LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1657 Ex Parte Doyle et al 11/701,848 GREEN 102(b) JONES DAY EXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Bergeron 12/003,735 GREEN 102(b) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

1722 Ex Parte Lungu 11/296,902 TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

2184 Ex Parte Baugher et al 11/299,916 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STEVEN G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Fiden et al 10/428,516 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P

3728 Ex Parte Charng 10/887,911 SPAHN 102(b) BERENATO & WHITE, LLC EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM

[P]atentability cannot be predicated on printing alone. In re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, 912 (CCPA 1934).

Printed matter can patentability distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the claimed printed matter and the claimed substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The PTO has the better argument”).

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(a)

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

NEW

REVERSED

1781 Ex Parte Ammann et al 10/564,452 GREEN 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

1765 Ex Parte Nguyen 11/732,389 TIMM 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1623 Ex Parte Bostrom et al 10/582,308 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D

2628 Ex Parte Han et al 10/957,032 HAHN 102(a)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M

3626 Ex Parte Logue 11/013,927 FISCHETTI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Ames et al 10/842,758 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,581 ZECHER 103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

3731 Ex Parte Kantor et al 10/827,819 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

2444 Ex Parte Wilding et al 10/401,413 CHEN 102(e) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

Phillips, gulack, diamond1, ngai, lowry, cruciferous, MEHL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Pacetti et al 11/487,059 GRIMES 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Leistra et al 10/698,659 KRATZ 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gernold 10/784,196 MacDONALD 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/406,651 MacDONALD 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

While a general-usage dictionary can be helpful in understanding claim language, a general dictionary “cannot overcome art-specific evidence of the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

2471 Ex Parte Barron 10/401,236 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/893,216 SAADAT 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gass 10/944,535 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Barbour 11/045,703 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, AKILILU K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Booth et al 11/250,043 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, SU C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bruck 10/912,302 GRIMES 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU MINH

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Hamamjy et al 11/114,261 OWENS 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,667 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barghouthi 11/186,600 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2175 Ex Parte Balinsky et al 11/190,436 DANG 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2186 Ex Parte Xu et al 11/224,418 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Cross et al 11/154,897 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SERROU, ABDELALI

The subject matter presented in claim 1 on appeal relates to features that differ from the prior art solely on the basis of “non-functional descriptive material,” which is generally not given patentable weight when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter. See id. at 1384; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed Cir. 1994).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

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

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
2629 Ex Parte Goodwin et al 11/122,610 RUGGIERO 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Viswanathan 11/400,850 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAI L

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gass 10/984,643 PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

In order for the Examiner to show that a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art, the Examiner must establish that the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with or includes the claim limitation. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02