SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Showing posts with label morse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morse. Show all posts

Monday, August 20, 2018

morse

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Murphy et al 13999608 - (D) OWENS 103 ARCONIC INC. C/0 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Bertolini et al 12569260 - (D) REPKO 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) WONG, HUEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Copertino et al 13165947 - (D) KHAN 102/103 STRAUB & POKOTYLO TILAHUN, ALAZAR

2437 Ex Parte Chaudhri et al 13223228 - (D) CHEN 103 KANG LIM DOAN, HUAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Schauble et al 14782800 - (D) HUGHES 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Yamazaki 12913464 - (D) HAMANN 103/OTDP FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) BELL, LAUREN R

2853 Ex Parte MIYAKE et al 13716944 - (D) MOORE 102/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SHAH, MANISH S

2856 Ex Parte Cameron 15137100 - (D) TIMM 112(1)/101 Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC FRANK, RODNEY T

O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113, 15 How. 62, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1853) (rejecting a claim that would have broadly conferred "a monopoly" in the use of electromagnetism, "however developed, for the purpose of printing at a distance"). 

O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) 706.03(a) 2106 2106.04(b) 2106.05(f)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Morris et al 14369392 - (D) BAHR 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY LAMBE, PATRICK F

3691 Ex Parte Hueler 13099994 - (D) WIEDER 101/103 Hollingsworth Davis, LLC PRESTON, JOHN 0

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Jensen et al 13244451 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/102/103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC ALIE, GHASSEM

3736 Ex Parte Guillemaud et al 11962944 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, HUONG Q

3747 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 13337352 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP MCMAHON, MARGUERITE J

3765 Ex Parte Fisher et al 12910187 - (D) HOSKINS 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (NIKE, INC.) ANNIS, KHALED

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte An et al 13148354 - (D) DENNETT 103 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP BUTCHER, ROBERT T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Traeber 12143084 - (D) SAADAT 103 103 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC CLAWSON, STEPHEN J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Soffer et al 14387607 - (D) HUGHES 103 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2862 Ex Parte Hayner 12838633 - (D) TIMM 101 101 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

2864 Ex Parte Kantzes et al 10435819 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 Kelly, Holt & Christenson, P.L.L.C. LE, TOAN M

2882 Ex Parte Mann et al 13197065 - (D) HAMANN 102/103 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ASFAW, MESFIN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Cabourg 13554442 - (D) KERINS 112(2) 112(2) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC MEKHAEIL, SHIREF M

3679 Ex Parte Ciprich et al 12549606 - (D) HORNER 103 102 41.50 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DUNWOODY, AARON M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Bujard 11922061 - (D) SMITH 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte KWANG et al 14682411 - (D) RANGE 112(1)/112(4)/103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. YUEN, JACKY

1764 Ex Parte AERTS et al 14076640 - (D) SQUIRE 103 CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC. BROOKS, KREGG T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Kamal et al 14012478 - (D) JEFFERY 103 W &T/Qualcomm RANKIN, CANDICE A

2173 Ex Parte Hatambeiki et al 12956154 - (D) KUMAR 103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP BYCER, ERIC J

2199 Ex Parte Fornaeus et al 13764329 - (D) KRIVAK 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP DASCOMB, JACOB D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Resch et al 15167482 - (D) BUSCH 103 41.50 112(2) Garlick & Markison (IBM) TOLENTINO, RODERICK

2448 Ex Parte JOKINEN et al 14157943 - (D) CRAIG 102/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON EDWARDS, JAMES A

2456 Ex Parte Karthikeyan et al 14389554 - (D) SAADAT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC KHAN, HASSAN ABDUR-RAHMAN

2498 Ex Parte Robinson et al 12789493 - (D) KRIVAK 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC AMORIN, CARLOS E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Egerton 14297418 - (D) SAADAT 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP LHYMN, SARAH

2687 Ex Parte Hamam et al 14697680 - (D) CHEN 102 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion WANG, JACK K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte PETERS et al 13710737 - (D) MOORE 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WICKLUND, DANIEL PM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Powell et al 13532975 - (D) COURTENAY 101/102 Facebook/Fenwick KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE

3623 Ex Parte Tavares et al 13032878 - (D) CRAIG 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP DELICH, STEPHANIE ZAGARELLA

3624 Ex Parte PROW et al 12907436 - (D) McCARTNEY 101/103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP CHOY, PAN G

3625 Ex Parte Loveland 13395658 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 101 PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. HAQ, NAEEM U

3628 Ex Parte KOLLING 13622127 - (D) CHEN 101/103 CROWELL & MORING LLP TALLMAN, BRIAN A

3681 Ex Parte Honnef et al 13243972 - (D) FETTING 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA LI, SUN M

3682 Ex Parte Yruski et al 11586959 - (D) REPKO 101 Polsinelli LLP - SIEA BROWN, LUIS A

3683 Ex Parte Flood et al 13418715 - (D) BEAMER 101 101/103 41.50 101 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC NGUYEN, NGA B

3683 Ex Parte Rosjat et al 13719845 - (D) FINAMORE 101/103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE

3685 Ex Parte Balasubramanian et al 11381270 - (D) HUME 103 The Webb Law Firm/ Visa International HALE, TIM B

3686 Ex Parte Stueckemann et al 14107154 - (D) FETTING 101 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (AbbVie Inc.) CHNG, JOY POH AI

3688 Ex Parte Catania et al 12783762 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 101/103 ADD&G - 27975 CAO, VINCENT M

3691 Ex Parte RIGBY 13012002 - (D) LORIN 101 KENEALY VAIDYA LLP KAZIMI, HAN! M

3692 Ex Parte Hueler 14313047 - (D) WIEDER 101 Hollingsworth Davis, LLC HAMILTON, SARA CHANDLER

3693 Ex Parte WINNER et al 13211262 - (D) KRIVAK 101 Shumaker & Sieffert P.A./Twitter, Inc. BARTLEY, KENNETH

3696 Ex Parte Doelling et al 13051814 - (D) McMILLIN 101 LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD CHANG, EDWARD

3696 Ex Parte Raj et al 13681220 - (D) BRANCH 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA NIQUETTE, ROBERT R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Williams 13888500 - (D) DOUGAL 102 103 Covidien LP PALMER, LUCAS EA

3728 Ex Parte NAKAMURA et al 14330262 - (D) SCHOPPER 112(1)/112(2) 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. ACKUN, JACOB K

3747 Ex Parte Sellnau et al 13881621 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 Delphi Technologies IP Limited STECKBAUER, KEVIN R

3754 Ex Parte Ziesel 14265632 - (D) HORNER 103 Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP KO NGO, LIEN M

3762 Ex Parte Lineaweaver 12557242 - (D) FITZPATRICK 112(2)/102/103 Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC LEE, ERICA SHENG KAI

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

McRO, morse

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Roberts 14208867 - (D) DENNETT 103 FAY SHARPE LLP LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

2145 Ex Parte Cheah 13612584 - (D) FRAHM 103 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. STITT, ERIK V

2145 Ex Parte Cheah 13618881 - (D) FRAHM 103 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. STITT, ERIK V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Oberli et al 14440665 - (D) OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 112(2)/112(4) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. ALI, WAQAAS A

2621 Ex Parte Lira 14176585 - (D) CUITTA 102 102/103 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook BUKOWSKI,KENETH

3664 Ex Parte Mannon et al 14149619 - (D) SHAW 102/103 102/103 HONEYWELL/S&S PECHE, JORGE 0

AFFIRMED
2686 Ex Parte Fraignac et al 14127584 - (D) McNEILL 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. ADNAN, MUHAMMAD

3621 Ex Parte Hochstatter et al 13029760 - (D) McNEILL 101/103 Ascenda Law Group, PC HOAR, COLLEEN A

"The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1853)). "We therefore look to whether the claims ... focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. 

McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   2106 ,   2106.04 ,   2106.04(a) ,   2106.04(a)(1) ,   2106.04(a)(2) ,2106.05 ,   2106.05(a) ,   2106.05(b) ,   2106.05(c) ,   2106.05(f) ,   2106.06(b)

O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) 706.03(a) 2106 2106.04(b) 2106.05(f)

3626 Ex Parte Sirica et al 13632629 - (D) JEFFERY 101 Howard IP Law Group TIEDEMAN, JASON S

3681 Ex Parte Smallwood et al 13354849 - (D) BEAMER 101/OTDP Facebook/Fenwick REFAI, SAM M

3689 Ex Parte Schepers et al 12997893 - (D) FRAHM 112(1) 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MINCARELLI, JAN P

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
2914 Ex parte SONOS, INC. Ex Parte D559197 et al 90013497 - (D) MARTIN 102 KPPB LLP ( Sonos ) For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROURK JACKSON WALKER LLP LY,DARLINGTON

AFFIRMED
2617 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent. Ex Parte 7,120,462 et al 11/305,996 95002075 - (D) McKEOWN 103 2nd Reexam Group - Polsinelli PC NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP For Third-Party Requester: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP NGUYEN,MINHDIEUT original NGUYEN, HUY D

REHEARING

DENIED
2693 Ex parte HAN DINGNAN Ex Parte 8976127 et al 13/202,574 90013699 - (R) HOFF 103 HAN DINGNAN For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NKPATENTLAW BONSHOCK, DENNIS G original NGUYEN, KIMNHUNG T

Thursday, November 23, 2017

morse

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ohrn et al 13822231 - (D) NEW 101 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (SF) BORIN, MICHAEL L

The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where “it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.” O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1853). 

O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) 706.03(a) 2106

1639 Ex Parte Kronick et al 13116998 - (D) PRATS 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Lu et al 12970011 - (D) ROSS 103 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. HUANG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2153 Ex Parte Zhu et al 13306820 - (D) WINSOR 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE VO, CECILE H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte YAMAGUCHI 14730411 - (D) McNEILL 103 KEATING & BENNETT, LLP SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA DEMETER, HILINA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Burbank et al 14143738 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 C. R. Bard, Inc./BBS EISEMAN, ADAM JARED

3766 Ex Parte Phillips et al 11693328 - (D) SCHEINER 103 103 MEDTRONIC, INC. (NEURO/MRG) LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

3786 Ex Parte Van Stevendaal et al 13575828 - (D) WARNER 101/103 112(2) 41.50 112(2) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KINNARD, LISA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Chen et al 13455025 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP NOWLIN, ERIC

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Nuutinen et al 13148722 - (D) NAPPI 103 Keysight Technologies, Inc. C/O CPA Global FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS

2653 Ex Parte Gamble 12658000 - (D) BENNETT 102/103 Oliver W. Gamble PHAN, JOSEPH T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Harrison 13398981 - (D) McGEE 103 MOSER TABOADA AMRANY, ADI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Mack 14777478 - (D) HORNER 103 THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES E. RULAND, PLC SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Gale et al 13112960 - (D) PESLAK 103 SQUIRE PB (Abbott) KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M

3742 Ex Parte Casner 12895984 - (D) PESLAK 102/103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

3763 Ex Parte BOURGEOIS et al 13354029 - (D) O’HANLON 103 POLSINELLI PC LEE, WENG WAH

Thursday, July 25, 2013

hyatt3, fiers, morse, CLS, swanson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Feldman et al 11922952 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/112(2)/103 DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Bhasker et al 10888265 - (D) MacDONALD 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Baker Botts LLP LEWIS, CHERYL RENEA

The scope of claim 10 encompasses any and all (present and future) processing instructions for directing a computer to perform the claimed steps. Yet, Appellants’ Specification discloses at most only those processing instructions known to the inventor. Our reviewing court has concluded that such all-encompassing claims do not comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

Because the count at issue purports to cover all DNAs that code for <>–IF, it is also analogous to a single means claim, which has been held not to comply with the first paragraph of section 112. See In re Hyatt, 708 F. 2d 712, [714] (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“the enabling disclosure of the specification [must] be commensurate in scope with the claim under consideration.”) Claiming all DNA’s that achieve a result without defining what means will do so is not in compliance with the description requirement; it is an attempt to preempt the future before it has arrived.

Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(emphasis added).

The proper statutory basis for the rejection of a single means claim is the requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 that the enabling disclosure of the specification be commensurate in scope with the claim under consideration.

The long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. See O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 112, 14 L.Ed. 601 (1853).

In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(footnotes omitted).

We note that claims in the standard Beauregard-type computer program product means-plus-function format avoid this enablement problem.

The final paragraph of § 112 saves combination claims drafted using means-plus-function format from this problem by providing a construction of that format narrow enough to avoid the problem of undue breadth as forbidden by the first paragraph. But no provision saves a claim drafted in means-plus-function format which is not drawn to a combination, i.e., a single means claim. 

Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 715.

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte J├Ârgens et al 10572274 - (D) SCHEINER 103 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP WASHINGTON, JAMARES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Lang 10591897 - (D) McKONE 112(2)/103 MICHAEL J. STRIKER WEST, JEFFREY R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Costello et al 12186084 - (D) BROWN 103 FAY SHARPE LLP PUROL, DAVID M

3689 Ex Parte Haebig et al 10880795 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2)/103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC NGUYEN, TAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Weaver et al 10409308 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Bowman 11840282 - (D) HOUSEL 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1746 Ex Parte Krispin et al 11528929 - (D) DELMENDO 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP AFTERGUT, JEFFRY H

1765 Ex Parte Tsutsui et al 12173372 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LISTVOYB, GREGORY

1767 Ex Parte Licht et al 12065036 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1787 Ex Parte Paiva et al 11576951 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY AHMED, SHEEBA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bhatia 11088700 - (D) CURCURI 103 Baker Botts LLP LE, HUNG D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Amir et al 10569212 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 NAOMI ASSIA AHMED, MASUD

VACATED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte McLeod et al 11998988 - (D) GRIMES 102/112(2) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 112(b) USMRMC-OSJA MS. ELIZABETH ARWINE, ESQ. BASKAR, PADMAVATHI

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Mabey et al 11654486 - (R) DELMENDO 103/double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY STANLEY, JANE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Gustavson et al 11035933 - (D) MACDONALD 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MALZAHN, DAVID H

Appellants’ first contention that the Board has erred is based on several points.

1) That the holding in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., ___ F.3d ____, 2013 WL 1920941, No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) requires the Board’s decision to “identify the fundamental concept (i.e., abstract idea) [ ] at risk of preemption.” (Rehearing Request 4).

2) That the Board’s rejection fails to “articulate the fundamental concept that allegedly is wrapped up in the claimed invention and at risk of preemption” as required by CLS. (Rehearing Request 1).

First, contrary to Appellants’ allegation, the holding in CLS v. Alice does not require the Board’s Decision to identify the fundamental concept or in fact to do anything else. Rather, as Chief Judge Rader points out “nothing said today beyond our judgment has the weight of precedent.” CLS, ___ F.3d at ____n.1, 2013 WL 1920941 at *20 n.1 (Rader, Chief Judge concurring-in-part dissenting-in-part).

Second, although Appellants are misguided in relying on CLS, we note that any rejection must begin “by determining what, precisely, the applicant has invented and is seeking to patent, and how the claims relate to and define that invention. (MPEP § 2103 I; 8th Ed., Rev. 9).” (Decision 16). The Board does precisely this at pages 22-25 of their Decision.

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90011763 7,840,678 WEINBERG 102 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP 2nd Reexam Group THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP STEELMAN, MARY J original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

In reexaminations, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not the conclusive burden of proof Appellant posits. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also 37 CFR § 1.555(b) referring to the preponderance of the evidence, burden of proof standard.