SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label mullin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mullin. Show all posts

Friday, January 9, 2015

alice, mayo, mullin, herbert

custom search

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Ting et al 11294354 - (D) POTHIER Concurring Baumeister 101/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Nguyen 11985484 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 101/102 Martin Khang Nguyen CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).

In judging whether claim 12 falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then consider the elements of the claim — both individually and as an ordered combination — to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept” — an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id.


Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

3685 Ex Parte CHATTE 11866007 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(2)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Avery Dennison Corporation Requester v. Continental Datalabel, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Flynn et al 6,860,050 10/390,339 95001608 - (D) GUEST 112(1)/103 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: AVERY DENNISION CORPORTION NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why the label assembly with the matrix strip intact would not meet the requirements of the claim. In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335 (CCPA 1973) (finding that a reference that describes a composition or structure as being an intermediate can be regarded as prior art) (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390 (CCPA 1972)).

Monday, February 25, 2013

herbert, mullin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Burger et al 11554113 - (D) COURTENAY 102 JAMES M. STOVER LEE, WILSON

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Chen et al 10676965 - (D) JEFFERSON 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KARIKARI, KWASI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Morita et al 11392768 - (D) SPAHN 103 SUGHRUE-265550 JENNISON, BRIAN W

3753 Ex Parte Zerfas 11741142 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 112(1)/103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP BASTIANELLI, JOHN

3771 Ex Parte SCHERMEIER et al 11381662 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC STUART, COLIN W

3777 Ex Parte Ostrovsky 11289981 - (D) GREEN 103 Boston Scientific Corporation Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP ROY, BAISAKHI

3778 Ex Parte Steger et al 10336136 - (D) VANOPHEM 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Khan 10957488 - (D) GARRIS 103 112(1) Bracewell & Giuliani LLP BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 10668949 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Siemens Corporation PHAM, HUNG Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ly 10332672 - (D) SPAHN 103 103 RatnerPrestia ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

It has long been held that an intermediate product or article can anticipate a claimed article even if the intermediate product is merely a stage in the final production of a non-anticipatory article. See In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335-6 (CCPA 1973) (an article that is intended and appreciated is no less anticipatory be it an intermediate structure rather than an end use item) (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1394 (CCPA 1972)).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Bright 11985180 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 JOHNS MANVILLE MUSSER, BARBARA J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Vogel et al 10369349 - (D) KIM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Watanabe 11680235 - (D) RICE 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC GORDEN, RAEANN

3775 Ex Parte Biegun et al 10534567 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/102/103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber WOODALL, NICHOLAS W