perricone, minton, hoffer, griffin

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ahlem et al 11551195 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HARBOR THERAPEUTICS, INC. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Although not clearly stated, the Examiner may alternatively be relying upon a theory of inherency. However, the treatment of HIV does not inherently result in the treatment of a mycobacterium infection.In Perricone, the Federal Circuit distinguished between the topical application of a lotion to skin generally to prevent sunburn, and the topical application of a lotion to treat sunburned skin, finding that the “issue is not . . . whether [the prior art] lotion if applied to skin sunburn would inherently treat that damage, but whether Pereira discloses the application of its composition to skin sunburn. It does not.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Reinschke et al 10591089 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ANDREWS, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte KUBLER et al 11764815 - (D) LORIN 103 King & Spalding LLP FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3662 Ex Parte Munch 11580771 - (D) MURPHY 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 12251173 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Ritt et al 10843492 - (D) EVANS 102(e) 101 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MCNALLY, MICHAEL S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Diaz et al 12391821 - (D) TIMM 103 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Caveney et al 11179762 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Perman & Green, LLP LOWE, MICHAEL S

“A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “However, when the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in giving limiting effect to the “wherein” clauses in an interference because the wherein clauses “relate back to and clarify what is required by the count.” The court was not persuaded by the arguments that the wherein clauses in that case “merely state the inherent result of performing the manipulative steps.” Id. at 1034. 

Minton, Hoffer, and Griffin establish that each claim reciting a “wherein” or “whereby” clause must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the clause is entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. 

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2106 , 2111.04 , 2133.03(c)

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11346750 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC DORNA, CARRIE R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Hind et al 12204597 - (D) TROCK 112(2) 102(e) CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Khalid et al 11409586 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Jeong et al 11714060 - (D) COURTENAY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MCKIE, GINA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Karpov et al 12082181 - (D) WILSON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 NALCO COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. VOSTEEN CONSULTING GmbH Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Vosteen et al 90/011,604 6,878,358 B 10/430,088 95001587 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Third Party Requester: Reed Smith, LLP XU, LING X original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 7232656 et al 10/610,305 95000528 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 102/103 COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP Third Party Requester: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original WHISENANT, ETHAN C

griffin, hoffer, minton

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Yano et al 11067290 - (D) DIXON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takiguchi et al 11126127 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

2835 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11421825 - (D) MURPHY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAPE, ZACHARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11139591 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barsness et al 11833290 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION KIM, TAELOR

The determination of whether recitations or clauses introduced by terms such as “wherein,” “whereby,” or, in the present appeal, “thereby” result in affirmative claim limitations which are to be given patentable weight depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id.

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103, 2111.04
DONNER 10: 909, 916, 1018-24
HARMON 6: 25

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04
HARMON 6: 112; 19: 511

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)  2106,  2111.04,  2133.03(c)
HARMON 2: 215; 19: 373

minton, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Burke 12054577 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated MILLIGAN, ADAM C

1612 Ex Parte Vogel et al 10220982 - (D) SCHEINER 103 MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. C/O STOEL RIVES, LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Leidholm et al 12060221 - (D) OWENS 102/103 Nanosolar, Inc. AYAD, TAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte OZUGUR et al 11463928 - (D) MILLS 103 GARLICK & MARKISON (ALU) SALOMON, PHENUEL S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Vance 10951826 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON OKEKE, ONYEDIKA C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Vazquez-Anon et al 11674916 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 POLSINELLI PC RAO, SAVITHA M

Cf. Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The term ‘efficiently’ [in the whereby clause] on its face does not inform the mechanics of how the trade is executed …. Rather, the term ‘efficiently’ is a laudatory one characterizing the result of the executing step.”). Although the appealed claims use the word “wherein,” rather than the “whereby” used in Minton’s claim, the introduced clauses merely characterize the result of the method steps but do not inform the mechanics of the method. See also, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.”).

minton HARMON 3: 215; 19: 373
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
HARMON 3: 109, 290; 4: 58, 228; 6: 5, 111, 215; 7: 24, 54; 8: 13, 22, 177, 192, 213; 9: 134; 14: 77, 83, 88; 18: 401; 19: 420, 436; 20: 154, 168, 186, 194, 209, 211, 277; 21: 76

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Hiruma et al 11718971 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KASHNIKOW, ERIK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Fang et al 12002895 - (D) KIMLIN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION KO, JASON Y

1727 Ex Parte Murai 11883577 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1727 Ex Parte ABE et al 11927102 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP ALEJANDRO, RAYMOND

1764 Ex Parte Sahade et al 11918788 - (D) McKELVEY 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP HUHN, RICHARD A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Jung et al 11107343 - (D) ANDERSON 101/102 Constellation Law Group, PLLC AHMED, MOHAMMED

cordis, hoffer, minton, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Dent 11/143,157 GONSALVES 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Edgar 11/298,336 HOELTER 102/103 Elizabeth A. Edgar EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3657 Ex Parte Adoline et al 10/820,280 STAICOVICI 103 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3687 Ex Parte East 11/177,182 FETTING 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tarantino 10/810,782 LORIN 103 WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3721 Ex Parte Seyffert 11/051,274 CALVE 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3761 Ex Parte Meir 10/601,455 BONILLA 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kiehlbauch et al 11/812,902 DELMENDO 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Alberth et al 10/206,706 DILLON 103 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER BOCURE, TESFALDET

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Uhlir-Tsang et al 11/553,932 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

1734 Ex Parte Higgins 12/167,139 METZ 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER LE, EMILY M

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al 11/700,633 GAUDETTE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1767 Ex Parte TAKAGI et al 12/391,725 FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1771 Ex Parte Bhan et al 11/014,362 SCHAFER 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Sahita et al 11/170,925 DROESCH 101/102 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation RIAD, AMINE

Claim construction is an issue of law subject to review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2183 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/850,095 DILLON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

The determination of whether an intended use clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jain et al 10/291,169 KIM 101/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[i]t is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”). Simply adding computer limitations to such mental processes, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11/241,883 KIM 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER SMITH, JEFFREY A

3627 Ex Parte Stenz et al 10/873,000 FETTING non-obvious double patenting 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3634 Ex Parte Woller 10/426,550 HORNER 102 GARDNER GROFF GREENWALD & VILLANUEVA. PC CHIN EXAMINER SHUE, ALVIN C

3682 Ex Parte Boyle 11/215,907 KIM 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/174,654 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boukhny 11/060,827 FRANKLIN 103 ALCON EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3743 Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al 10/879,136 BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LU, JIPING

3767 Ex Parte Dalton 11/252,329 FITZPATRICK 103 Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/159,718 DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG