packard, nautilus, McAward

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Johnson et al 13446353 - (D) DENNETT 103 PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP QI, HUA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Ruehl et al 13957463 - (D) HAMANN 102/OTDP Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Hoffmann 13911538 - (D) BENNETT 103 GATES & COOPER LLP - Boeing BANTHRONGSACK, JEFF

2462 Ex Parte Zhong 14288870 - (D) HUGHES 103 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. BARON, HENRY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte FRIPP et al 14443046 - (D) BARRY 102/103 41.50 112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ODOM, CURTIS B

We apply the test for indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in In re Packard, i.e., "[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear." 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ( citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") § 2173.05); see also id. at 1313 (stating that "claims are required to be cast in clear-as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms"); MPEP § 2173.02(1). We recognize that after the Packard decision, the Supreme Court in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), articulated a differently worded definiteness requirement in the context of patent-infringement litigation. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129 (requiring "that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"). Nautilus does not, however, mandate a change in the approach to indefiniteness in patent-examination matters in which, as discussed above, the claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and an opportunity to amend the claims is afforded. See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1323-24 (Plager, J., concurring) (recognizing and approving the reasons enumerated by the Office regarding why the Office review of pending claims for indefiniteness uses "a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court's"); see also Ex Parte McAward, Appeal 2015006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *2 (Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential).

Packard, In re, 751 F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2173.02 , 2173.05(a) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.06

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 110 USPQ2d 1688 (2014) 2173.02

2636 Ex Parte ZHANG et al 15225412 - (D) HUGHES 112(1) Harrity & Harrity, LLP CORS, NATHAN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte DEN BOEF et al 14264547 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. COOK, JONATHON

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Naughton 14727888 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, LPA VENNE, DANIEL V

3617 Ex Parte Nelson et al 14980663 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Perkins Coie LLP - DEN General BELLINGER, JASON R

3635 Ex Parte Kelly 14791600 - (D) PLENZLER 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP WALRAED-SULLIV AN, KYLE

3681 Ex Parte Wallace et al 12206846 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Annunziata 11711364 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP HOLLM, JONATHAN A

3743 Ex Parte Andres 13162152 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. DECKER, PHILLIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Benedict et al 14602336 - (D) BAYAT 103 103 Dority & Manning, P.A. and Haier US Appliance TRPISOVSKY, JOSEPH F

3764 Ex Parte Price 14219464 - (D) GUIJT 102 102/103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. THANH, LOAN H

3782 Ex Parte Ren 14335670 - (D) OSINSKI 102 102/103 41.50 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Fischer et al 12740487 - (D) PRATS 102/103 McBee Moore Woodward & Vanik IP, LLC QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

1627 Ex Parte Klamer 12998843 - (D) JENKS 102 Cermak Nakajima & McGowan LLP KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

1633 Ex Parte Li et al 13341239 - (D) NEW 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M

1677 Ex Parte Akerstrom et al 13636493 - (D) COTTA 103/OTDP 101 Foley & Lardner LLP MARCSISIN, ELLEN JEAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 12996275 - (D) DERRICK 103 41.50 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP TRAN, LIEN THUY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Saenz et al 14620065 - (D) THOMAS 103 Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle CHEN, QING

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Zadeh et al 13854044 - (D) HUGHES 101/103 INNOVATION PARTNERS DOAN, TAN

2465 Ex Parte KIM et al 14180973 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP COSME, NATASHA W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Homan et al 12885901 - (D) SNAY 103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP AMRANY, ADI

2857 Ex Parte Hadley 13455867 - (D) RANGE 103 Entit Software LLC CROHN, MARK I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Dhavle et al 13344332 - (D) BUSCH 103 101/103 FIALA & WEAVER P.L.L.C. RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3681 Ex Parte Bruich et al 13693470 - (D) KIM 101 103 Facebook/Fenwick REFAI,SAMM

3689 Ex Parte Tse 14097079 - (D) BUSCH 112(2)/102/103 101 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP GLENNIE, DEBRA L

3696 Ex Parte Gamble et al 13782909 - (D) CRAWFORD 101 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP OJIAKU, CHIKAODINAKA

3696 Ex Parte Hilario et al 13169773 - (D) BAYAT 101 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. NGUYEN, LIZ P

3696 Ex Parte Sarkissian et al 14031757 - (D) MacDONALD 101 K&L GATES LLP-Pittsburgh CHANG, EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Cadeau et al 14241140 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation SANCHEZ-MEDINA, REINALDO

3778 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 13764954 - (D) CAPP 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte WARD et al 12260445 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 ANTHONY ASQUITH SASAKI, SHOGO

The 2nd paragraph of § 112 requires that claims, viewed in light of the specification, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty while recognizing absolute precision is unattainable. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Mirza et al 12603482 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102/103 Betty E. Ungerman STEVENS, THOMAS H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Kouhi 12469217 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2)/103 MARKS & CLERK COLEMAN, WILLIAM D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte LANGER et al 12694884 - (D) GARRIS 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Bair 12181187 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 112(1)/102/103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte LEVINE et al 12062603 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Prass LLP LEE, TOMMY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12592541 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Mantovan et al 12445078 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PAIK, SANG YEOP

eli lilly2, ariad, hearing, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2458 Ex Parte Davis et al 12524500 - (D) THOMAS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP RECEK, JASON D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Bouhamame et al 12678507 - (D) DELMENDO 102 NXP B.V. LE, DINH THANH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Whynot 12341845 - (D) SHAW 103 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. OWYANG, MICHELLE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lukose et al 12263176 - (D) MOHANTY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Lingappa et al 10911421 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) 112(1)/double patenting QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

“The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ...

This is particularly relevant when, as here, Appellants’ Specification discloses that one has to experiment to determine if a conformer for any particular protein could, in fact, be produced, let alone be distinguishably identified by a ligand (see FF 13). Notwithstanding Appellants’ contentions to the contrary:

[A] sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus[, as Appellants have done on this record,] is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species” (id.). ...

“The written description requirement [serves to] . . . ensure[] that when a patent claims a genus by its
function or result, the specification recites sufficient materials to accomplish that function.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. In this regard, the written description requirement requires “more than a ‘wish’ or ‘plan’ for obtaining” the claimed invention. Id. at 1350.

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) , 2111.03, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161.01

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Granit et al 12279952 - (D) TROCK 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP HASSAN, AURANGZEB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Hird 12272205 - (D) HOMERE 103 Vierra Magen / CA Inc ZAIDI, SYED A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Rak et al 11738981 - (D) HAAPALA 103 BlackBerry Limited (Fitch Even) CRAWLEY, KEITH L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte PUPPI et al 12971606 - (D) GUIJT 103 112(2) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Pirelli & C. S.p.A. VENNE, DANIEL V

As claimed, the suffix “like” acts as a term of degree because it is intended to encompass structures that may differ to some degree from threads. Our reviewing court has held that “[n]ot all terms of degree are indefinite,” but that “‘the specification must provide[] some standard for measuring that degree.’” Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

We find the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants fail to provide the requisite standard for measuring whether a structure is “thread-like.”

3671 Ex Parte Oberg 13151792 - (D) GEIER 103 NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A. TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Drack et al 12893728 - (D) MAYBERRY 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PRAGER, JESSE M

3788 Ex Parte Sloan 12227610 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SKINNER AND ASSOCIATES NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Requester, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent v. MICROSOFT CORP. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant Ex Parte 6339780 et al 08/851,877 95002267 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HAYNES & BOONE LLP FOR PATENT OWNER:  KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP original Lee & Hayes, PLLC KISS, ERIC B original JUNG, DAVID YIUK

datamize, nautilus, interval

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Gargaro et al 12245971 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) SCHWARTZ, DARREN B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Chan et al 11614179 - (D) WIEDER 102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Warkentin et al 11343175 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BEHRINGER, LUTHER G

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Horn et al 12692332 - (D) MacDONALD 102 102 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION SCHELL, JOSEPH O

2184 Ex Parte TRIECE et al 11928132 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 King & Spalding LLP SUN, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11447138 - (D) MCKONE 103 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NGUYEN, THAI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Ma et al 12653722 - (D) PAK 103 obviousness-type double patenting Winkle, PLLC CHEN, XIAOLIANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Sharma et al 12304007 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Wellstat Management Company. LLC WEST, THEODORE R

1674 Ex Parte Kay et al 10259226 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing ANGELL, JON E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Butts et al 11704809 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED LAZORCIK, JASON L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Cheng et al 12017016 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG BHATIA, AJAY M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11731977 - (D) FISHMAN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI

2452 Ex Parte Chevanne et al 10673458 - (D) SMITH 103 Wolff & Samson (ALU) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2456 Ex Parte Hoggan 12205706 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/SFO SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

2485 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos 11494929 - (D) STRAUSS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TORRENTE, RICHARD T

2495 Ex Parte Jaquette et al 11470804 - (D) DILLON 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP IBM Tucson LEWIS, LISA C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bosch et al 11938957 - (D) EVANS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Smith et al 13176436 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. LE, MARK T

3653 Ex Parte Brewer et al 12468973 - (D) HOELTER 103 Prass LLP MORRISON, THOMAS A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Knight 10/722,473 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

In our view, Applicant's Specification expands upon how the "indicating" steps of the claim may be performed to such an extent where there is "no objective definition identifying a standard for determing when" a method of relaying a story actually "indicat[es]" a certain fact (e.g., "a character's desire ... to remain asleep ... until a particular event occurs" as recited in claim 1).  See Datamize, LC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated by, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)4; Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 2014 WL 4435871, at *5 Fed. Cir. Sept. 10. 2014) ("Although absolute or mathematical precision is not required, it is not enough ... to identify some standard for measuring the scope of the phrase .... [Rather, t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.") (citations and quotations omitted).  We find the discussion in Datamize analogous to the circumstances here.5

4 While the Supreme Court in Nautilus disagreed with the standard for determining indefiniteness as applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Datamize the Court did not suggest any disagreement with the holding in Datamize that a completely subjective construction of a term renders the term indefinite.  See generally Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. 2120.  Although in the context of litigation based on an isued patent, the standard enunciated in Nautilus for determining definiteness - whether a patent's claims "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty" (id. at 2029) - is arguably less of a hurdle to establishing indefiniteness than the "insoluably ambiguous" standard applied in Datamize. Thus, we have no reason to suspect that, had the analysis in Datamize been performed under the "reasonable certainty" standard, the Federal Circuit would have reached a different conclusion.

5 In addition to our discussion herein, we recognize that, in Datamize, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court construction that the ordinary meaning of "aesthetically pleasing" "includes 'having beauty that gives pleasure or enjoyment' or, in other words, 'beautiful[,]'" but concluded the phrase was indefinite. 417 F.3d at 1348


3762 Ex Parte Cazares et al 12686122 - (D) ADAMS 103 BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A

3777 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11816424 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LUONG, PETER

applied materials, aller, antonie nautilus, orthokinetics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Brust et al 12234753 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY HUHN, RICHARD A

“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)). Nonetheless, “[t]his rule is limited to cases in which the optimized variable is a ‘result-effective variable.’” Id (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) 2141.02 , 2144.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Smolucha 11124411 - (D) GUIJT 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP MYHR, JUSTIN L

3742 Ex Parte Graillat et al 11377947 - (D) STEPINA 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

A claim is indefinite if “read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, [it] fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2123 (2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2173.02 , 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Bodine et al 12840127 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION PANG, ROGER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11033610 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Shah et al 11397543 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Hoyte et al 12756585 - (D) GARRIS Concurring NAGUMO 103 Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Breed et al 12020684 - (D) CAPP 112(b) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ TISSOT, ADAM D

chitayat, nautilus, energizer holdings, porter2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Fanning 12790502 - (D) GARRIS 103 BGL/Detroit YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 11277200 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC JAMAL, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Laub 12139075 - (D) WORTH 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN

3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11261443 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A GHAND, JENNIFER LEIGH-STEWAR

3773 Ex Parte Feinberg 10674653 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1)/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

3774 Ex Parte Chuter et al 12338020 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H BGL/Cook - Chicago

The Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive. Patent drawings are not necessarily intended to show accurate relative dimensions and “arguments based on mere measurement of the drawings [are] of little value.” In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d 475, 478 (CCPA 1969).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 12064477 - (D) MacDONALD 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. HSU, ALPUS

2493 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11733354 - (D) McKEOWN 103 101 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LE, CHAU D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pass 11505658 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MOORE, KARLA A

1734 Ex Parte Ylimäinen 12301262 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

1744 Ex Parte LUBURIC 12793748 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP LEE, EDMUND H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Zemlok et al 12189834 - (D) WARNER 102(e) Covidien LP WEEKS, GLORIA R

3741 Ex Parte Norris et al 12131280 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M

Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

We further note that if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”); Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (BPAI 1992) (“controlled stream of fluid” provided reasonable antecedent basis for “the controlled fluid”). For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1−20 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) 608.01(n) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.05(f) , 2173.05(q)

3775 Ex Parte de Villiers et al 11829056 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Patent Owner/Appellant v. PERMOBIL, INC. Requester/Respondent Ex Parte 8181992 et al 95002355 - (D) MARTIN 103 Baker & Hostetler LLP Third Party: WILMERHALE / DC ENGLISH, PETER C original BROWN, DREW J

montgomery, MEHL halliburton, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Willison et al 10187666 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

“The keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitability. For anticipation by inherency, a later-claimed invention must have necessarily resulted from the practice of a prior art reference. Our precedent has been steadfast in this strict requirement of inevitability.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 11605167 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12024176 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HOEY, ALISSA L

Our reviewing court instructs us that an applicant “is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.” Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court recently instructed us that claims must at least “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the [claimed subject matter] with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kouhi et al 11999586 - (D) KRIVAK 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT HITT GAINES, PC HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2491 Ex Parte Bomma 11935758 - (D) CHUNG 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Pildner 11521707 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TYCO FIRE PROTECTION JAMAL, ALEXANDER

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 11948458 - (D) PAULRAJ 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TAN, ALVIN H