wagner, mraz,seid

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Cooper et al 12361413 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed BROWN, MELANIE YU


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Aggerholm et al 12964055 - (D) HOELTER 103 Cook Medical Technologies LLC NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

Regarding Appellants’ contentions, our reviewing court has held that drawings can be used as prior art, without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing. See, e.g., In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 986–87 (CCPA 1933). Here, the filets, which transition between Sirhan’s scoring element (or wing) and balloon wall, are clearly disclosed. See also In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (“[W]e did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.”); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947) (“ [A]n accidental disclosure, if clearly made in a drawing, is available as a reference.” ) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the described filet does not exist or is merely the result of artistic license. Instead, the Examiner can properly rely on Sirhan’s disclosure of the curved filet adjacent the scoring element.

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) 2112.01 , 2144.04

McLaughlin, mraz, hockerson-halberstadt, wilson1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Manjunath et al 12720689 - (D) ENGELS 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Wang et al 12864205 - (D) HANLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Gill 12084718 - (D) WOODS 103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte DAY et al 12267815 - (D) KINDER 103 103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (SV) DRAGOESCU, CLAUDIA B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Irwin 10775680 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 DILWORTH IP, LLC HENRY, RODNEY M

3696 Ex Parte Deeming et al 12144538 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Grgac et al 12746948 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC. VAN SELL, NATHAN L

It has been recognized that the question of obviousness involves hindsight reasoning:

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hammen et al 12136058 - (D) JIVANI 112(2)/103 Perkins Coie LLP - SHA General WITZENBURG, BRUCE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Jacobs 11852956 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SMITH, CHENEA

2487 Ex Parte Biesbrouck et al 11008165 - (D) SHIANG 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Kirk 12193546 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG NGUYEN, BAO LONG T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 12515531 - (D) WOODS 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) FOX, JOHN C

While we are mindful that Hockerson-Halberstadt cautioned that patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue, that does not mean, “that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. ...

We find the Mraz decision to be more on point than both the Wright and Nystrom cases. The Mraz case involved a claim that included an edging roll having a groove therein formed by inwardly converging inclined surfaces, with the angle of the inclines not exceeding 15°. Mraz, 435 F.2d at
1070. A prior art reference to Wilson, asserted to disclose this claim feature, and illustrating (but not explicitly disclosing in writing) an angle of incline of about 6°, was characterized by the Court as, “focus[ing] on the edge rolls, showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.” 1 Id. at 1072. This was contrasted with and distinguished from a situation in an earlier decision, In re Wilson, in which “the attempted reliance was not only on a patent drawing per se, it was on a greatly enlarged section of a small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything.” Mraz, 435 F.2d at 1072; In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1963).

1 The angle of incline was presumably determined through the simple use of a protractor.

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL INC. Requester and Respondent v. MOTIONPOINT CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7584216 et al 10/784,727 95001918 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - MotionPoint THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original AL HASHEMI, SANA A

mraz, jockmus, aslanian

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Shindo et al 10570748 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1)/103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Best et al 11627387 - (D) FETTING 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC ZHAO, YU

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Pattan et al 11503279 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. NGUYEN, THANH T

2461 Ex Parte Akyamac et al 11772143 - (D) SMITH 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. BEYEN, ZEWDU A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Hartman et al 11634434 - (D) NEW 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Hologic, Inc./Cytyc Corporation LE, BRIAN Q

2668 Ex Parte Astrom et al 10774948 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) TSAI, TSUNG YIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11683710 - (D) OWENS 103 HID Global c/o Westman Champlin & Koehler, P.A CULLER, JILL E

2854 Ex Parte Nishimura 12081293 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 OLIFF PLC HA, NGUYEN Q

The Examiner relies heavily on drawings.  Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed.  In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together.  Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812, 814 (2d Cir. 1928).  Also, the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979)

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125
Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928) 2121.04 , 2125
Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) 2125


2872 Ex Parte Mueller 12125524 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. SHAFER, RICKY D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bar-Cohen et al 11700575 - (D) BAHR 103 MILSTEIN ZHANG & WU LLC LOPEZ, MICHELLE

3777 Ex Parte Boese et al 11704410 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION REMALY, MARK DONALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2846 Ex Parte Herring et al 12149924 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 102 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NGO, HUNG V

2879 Ex Parte Visser et al 12341134 - (D) COLAIANNI 102 103 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP SANTIAGO, MARICELI

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Nicholas 12485648 - (D) NAGUMO 103 Thompson Hine LLP COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 10801195 - (D) HOMERE 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP NORTON, JENNIFER L

2156 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11936257 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102 IBM CORPORATION AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Kaippallimalil 11745881 - (D) DIXON 103 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. HSU, ALPUS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Brown et al 11564010 - (D) STRAUSS, 103 IBM CORPORATION MA, TIZE

2641 Ex Parte Costa et al 10532346 - (D) FRAHM 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

2667 Ex Parte Vertoprakhov et al 11484282 - (D) POTHIER 112(2)/103 Jackson Walker LLP HEIDEMANN, JASON E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Beeson et al 11389201 - (D) KATZ 103 Goldeneye, Inc. HSIEH, HSIN YI

2858 Ex Parte Ungaretti et al 12111803 - (D) GARRIS 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (EP ORIGINATING) ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Schatteman et al 11300562 - (D) HILL 101 103 Ostrolenk Faber LLP GRABOWSKI, KYLEROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Doshi et al 10673055 - (D) FISHMAN 103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. HO, CHUONG T

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 NYCOMED US INC. (Requester) v. GLYCOBIOSCIENCES, INC. (Patent Owner and Appellant) Ex Parte Drizen et al 6,723,345 09/986,183 95001687 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2) 103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2604 Ex parte MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Ex Parte 5394140 et al 90010278 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: WILMERHALE/ NEW YORK TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original HORABIK, MICHAEL

mraz, hockerson-halberstadt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 11156875 - (D) Ex Parte Hancock et al RUGGIERO 102(e) Vista IP Law Group LLP AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 12262239 - (D) Ex Parte Faller et al RUGGIERO 112(1) Ryan, Mason & Lewis LLP BOCURE, TESFALDET

2642 11258472 - (D) Ex Parte Dunko KRIVAK 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 11171758 - (D) Ex Parte Boerstler et al HASTINGS 102(b)/103 IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC CRAWFORD, JASON

In this regard, while patent drawings can anticipate claims if the drawings clearly show the claimed structure, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069,1072 (CCPA 1972), patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc. 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125
DONNER 1: 476, 477; 2: 400; 3: 309, 437-41, 468, 479
HARMON 6: 144, 159, 162

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 11120720 - (D) Ex Parte Ge BROWN 103 Yaogen Ge SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 12204511 - (D) Ex Parte Spittle et al GARRIS 103 BRINKS GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1783 10765707 - (D) Ex Parte Wellman et al GARRIS 112(2) 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1786 11593148 - (D) Ex Parte Kim et al PAK 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) WILSON, MICHAEL H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 11258405 - (D) Ex Parte Jung et al THOMAS 102(b)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 12338589 - (D) Ex Parte Popp NEW 103 DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 11686153 - (D) Ex Parte Thomas BROWNE 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) LEE, BENJAMIN P

3674 11857859 - (D) Ex Parte Bustos et al HOSKINS 103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION DITRANI, ANGELA M 

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 11330988 - (D) Ex Parte Clark et al SMEGAL 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. PRANGE, SHARON M

kuhle, mraz

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Cooper et al 10/656,192 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Richey et al 10/944,209 GRIMES 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

The Examiner’s argument that the configuration of the strands is a matter of design choice is not persuasive. Design choice may be an acceptable rationale for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known configuration. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“The manner in which electrical contact is made for Smith’s battery would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art…. As the board pointed out, use of a spring-loaded contact in the manner claimed is well known with the common flashlight.”). Here, the Examiner has not provided evidence that the strand configuration recited in the claims was a known alternative to the designs shown by Mills, Kretchmer, and Soderlund.

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Ouyang et al 10/746,658 ZECHER 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Momosaki et al 10/934,380 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

While patent drawings alone may be used to reject claims, the value of the drawing sin that context extends only to what is clearly shown therein. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10/777,961 STEPHENS 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/168,784 DROESCH 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, MINH LOAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/544,519 CHEN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

REVERSED

2817 Ex Parte Pietig 10/538,580 BAUMEISTER 103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER JONES, STEPHEN E

3717 Ex Parte Rose 10/341,110 SILVERBERG 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

3721 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/106,806 SILVERBERG 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3685 Ex Parte Suermondt et al 10/175,469 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WORJLOH, JALATEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3714 Ex Parte Darby 10/339,096 SILVERBERG 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Bross et al 10/495,633 MOHANTY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DANNEMAN, PAUL

2155 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11/019,336 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM

3724 Ex Parte Gilder 11/147,000 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F

1612 Ex Parte Jentzsch et al 10/515,636 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1796 Ex Parte Jo et al 11/674,390 WALSH 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-AI N

3745 Ex Parte REIMER et al 11/535,162 SILVERBERG 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D