Net MoneyIN, Arkley

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Dennison 12199306 - (D) HOELTER 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP HAYES, BRET C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Hu et al 11527881 - (D) WIEKER 102 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. SHAY, DAVID M

“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
...
In an anticipation rejection, “the reference must ‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”’ Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)). While “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88. Here, although Panescu discloses an expandable member, a mesh, and a plurality of thermocouples, Panescu does not disclose these elements “as arranged in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 88 USPQ2d 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2152.02(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Vasko et al 12191741 - (D) FINK 103 103 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION / T&W GIRMA, ANTENEH B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Parker et al 11905247 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 MARKS & CLERK HANCE, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Conus et al 10544644 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 GRIFFIN & SZIPL, PC NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 CME GROUP, INC. Requester v. REALTIME DATA LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7714747 et al 11/651,365 95001517 - (D) SIU 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Baker Botts, LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original NGUYEN, LINH V

perricone, net moneyin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Stevens et al 10525381 - (D) STRAUSS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Abe et al 11214763 - (D) BAHR 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MCADAMS, BRAD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Bergquist et al 11556270 - (D) KERINS 102/103 DON W. BULSON (PARK) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Thukral et al 12119143 - (D) HULSE 103 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Dickinson et al 11186730 - (D) SMITH 103 102/103 Nixon Peabody LLP WILLIAMS, ARUN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Cropper et al 11745835 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC ORKIN, ALEXANDER J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte KRALL et al 12480613 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP CHOI, FRANK I

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Fermin et al 11402443 - (D) PRAISS 103 Avery Dennison Corporation EMPIE, NATHAN H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Maxim et al 11532278 - (D) BUI 102 102/103 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Amerson Law Firm, PLLC BAHTA, KIDEST

In rejecting claims under 35 USC 102(b), "[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation."  Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F. 3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed Cir 2005).  However, "it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F. 3d 1359, 1371 (Fed Cir 2008)

net moneyin HARMON 3: 7, 10,11; 4: 251; 6: 278, 317, 331; 10: 390, 395; 19: 432

2185 Ex Parte Dasgupta et al 11011861 - (D) DANG 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC DILLON, SAMUEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte McQuaide 11004434 - (D) HUME 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ALCON, FERNANDO

2466 Ex Parte Zuckerman et al 12579774 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 112(1)/112(2) BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Walter 11352642 - (D) BRANCH 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G VIANA DI PRISCO, GERMAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Britton et al 11277397 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM SINGH, GURKANWALJIT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte TACKETT 11748360 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 IN RE NAREN CHAGANTI 09/634,725 2013-1372 09/634,725 PER CURIAM 103 NAREN CHAGANTI; Deputy Solicitor USPTO LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 REALTIME DATA, LLC (doing business as IXO), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN STANLEY et al Defendants-Appellees 2013-1092 2013-1093 2013-1095 2013-1097 2013-1098 2013-1099 2013-1100 2013-1101 2013-1103 7,417,568 10/434,305 7,714,747 11/651,365 7,777,651 12/131,631 LOURIE SJ non-infringement, invalidity under 112, precluding doctrine of equivalents McKool Smith, P.C.; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP original STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. JEANGLAUDE, JEAN BRUNER; NGUYEN, LINH V

net moneyin, edge, lindemann

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Remacle et al 10/991,087 MILLS 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP WILDER, CYNTHIA B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Takagi et al 10/854,212 COURTENAY 102(e) CROWELL & MORING LLP CHOWDHURY, NIGAR

See Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (To anticipate under §102 “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”) (underline added).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Linder et al 10/936,857 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LANG, AMY T

3733 Ex Parte Klaue et al 11/245,703 MILLS 103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP HOFFMAN, MARY C

3742 Ex Parte Zajchowski et al 10/976,969 STAICOVICI 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. RALIS, STEPHEN J

3748 Ex Parte Nakhamkin 12/818,186 SPAHN 103(a) Manelli Selter PLLC JETTON, CHRISTOPHER M

The Examiner appears to be relying on the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.04 II B, which states that “the omission of an element and retention of its function is an indicia of (un)obviousness. [sic]” See In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896 (CCPA 1966).

Edge, In re, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556 (CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

3761 Ex Parte Roe et al 10/769,493 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

The requirement for anticipation that the prior art elements themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated ... as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2164.01, 2164.05(a)

3764 Ex Parte Long et al 11/512,801 PRATS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3776 Ex Parte Evazynajad et al 11/204,453 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Andreas-Schott et al 11/434,386 TIMM 102(a,e)/103(a) 102(a,e)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION RYAN, PATRICK J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Mukund et al 10/712,711 BISK 103(a) 103(a) MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP LO, SUZANNE

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/235,102 BARRY 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) 103(a) JOHN S. HALE GIPPLE & HALE TANG, SON M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Daniel et al 11/027,613 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LANG, AMY T

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Richardson et al 10/811,309 GARRIS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LAZORCIK, JASON L

nievelt, unique concepts, gaus, net moneyin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hollenhorst et al 10/978,006 PAK 103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Kowalski 09/928,599 WINSOR 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Conradt et al 10/759,073 BAUMEISTER 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Pavcnik et al 10/662,216 BONILLA 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER LANG, AMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Burget et al 10/652,010 BISK 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Morabito 11/307,939 CLARKE 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Vipperla et al 11/297,774 HANLON 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

1745 Ex Parte Mathea 11/221,044 SMITH nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KLAUS J. BACH EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1763 Ex Parte Noguchi et al 11/594,933 WARREN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

1784 Ex Parte Mosley et al 11/475,528 KRATZ 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Leach 11/748,318 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER VU, TRISHA U

2171 Ex Parte Githens et al 10/660,143 BISK 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

2445 Ex Parte Geekee et al 10/740,410 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER LIU, LIN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Secor et al 10/756,843 WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102(e)/103(a) IBM Corp. (AUS) c/o Ostrow Kaufman LLP EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Ruetschi 10/625,960 GIANNETTI 102(e)/103(a) Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN) EXAMINER RIDER, JUSTIN W

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Beimesch 10/724,564 HAHN 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER ROGERS, DAVID A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Bahash 10/737,920 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN N

3733 Ex Parte Wenstrom et al 10/951,107 BONILLA 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER COMSTOCK, DAVID C

3762 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/668,627 SCHEINER 102(b) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2873 Ex Parte 6795605 et al INFINERA CORP. Third Party Requester, Appellant v. CHEETAH OMNI, LLC Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,240 10/644,721 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SPECTOR, DAVID N

2873 Ex Parte 7142347 et al INFINERA CORP. Third Party Requester, Appellant v. CHEETAH OMNI, LLC Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,239 11/199,513 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SPECTOR, DAVID N

Where a claim provides for two separate elements, those two elements “logically cannot be one and the same.” Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2004). See also Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991)( there can be no literal infringement where the patent in suit claims two elements and the accused device has only one element performing both functions). It is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

wertheim, kropa, net moneyin, advanced display, seversky, arkley

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte ASAOKA 12/174,973 PAK 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEYSON, JOSEPH S

1747 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12/277,883 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/245,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

1773 Ex Parte Ricci et al 10/581,964 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER SAKELARIS, SALLY A

Based on these facts, we determine that the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim that provides completeness to the claim and thus must be considered a limitation of the claim. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976) (citing Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951)).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

1783 Ex Parte Conner et al 11/891,433 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KHATRI, PRASHANT J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/926,548 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) Roland W. Norris Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,429 ASTORINO 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3734 Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/867,498 WALSH 103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3737 Ex Parte Fymat et al 11/524,866 GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

3782 Ex Parte Katchko et al 11/107,340 GREENHUT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/135,045 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

In an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.’” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (brackets in original)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-88.
REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 Ex Parte 6192347 et al Ex parte Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,556 09/134,451 TURNER 101/102(e) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D

To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed.Cir.2000), citing In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973). A “mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything.” Id. at 674 (emphasis in original).
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Chinea et al 11/189,139 McKELVEY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1715 Ex Parte Wojtaszek et al 12/050,709 GARRIS 103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1716 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/673,376 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1731 Ex Parte Shore et al 11/142,580 COLAIANNI 103(a) ENGELHARD CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

Citing to In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972), Appellants’ arguments seem to take issue with the picking and choosing needed to arrive at the claimed invention (Reply Br. 3). However, this line of argument appears to improperly treat the rejection as an anticipation rejection. The rejection on appeal is under § 103 and is based on whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. The court in Arkley recognized that picking and choosing is entirely proper in an obviousness rejection. Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-588.

1745 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/580,219 KRATZ 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1772 Ex Parte DiMagno et al 10/890,588 PER CURIAM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,780 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,810 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Majumdar et al 11/000,695 POTHIER 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Zeng et al 10/635,526 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, TED M

2617 Ex Parte Chiang et al 10/136,002 Per Curiam 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Doucette et al 11/275,747 BARRETT 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P

net moneyin, finisar

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Chow et al 11/285,815 GREEN 102(b) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER NIEBAUER, RONALD T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Brust et al 12/029,929 McKELVEY 102(a)/103(a)/double patenting EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER VALDEZ, DEVE E

Anticipation requires that a prior art reference (Szajeski I in this appeal) describe all the elements of the claim within the four corners of the reference arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim. Net MoneyIN Inc. v. VeriSign Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

1783 Ex Parte Buhay et al 11/085,330 HASTINGS 103(a) Andrew C. Siminerio, Esq. PPG Industries, Inc. EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Chow et al 11/670,714 NAPPI 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER TRICE, KIMBERLY N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Schellstede 11/270,685 LEE dissenting TORCZON 103(a) Roy Kiesel Ford Doody & Thurmon EXAMINER LU, JIPING
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/396,256 COLAIANNI 102(b) 102(b) IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1645 Ex Parte 6846477 et al 90/008,751 10/174,701 LEBOVITZ 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.111-1.113 and 1.550 PFIZER INC Mary J Hosley EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER SWARTZ, RODNEY P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Raschke et al 09/844,662 GRIMES 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/804,688 NAPPI 102(b) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER YEN, ERIC L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Jollenbeck et al 11/924,434 FRAHM 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER VORTMAN, ANATOLY

Thursday December 9, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Seifert 10/642,506 LUCAS STEPHENS THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LONG, ANDREA NATAE

[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign et al., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/806,750 HOFF HAIRSTON MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONC/O INTELLEVATE EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte McPherson 10/871,214 HORNER McCARTHY O’NEILL 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Beaudry 11/024,567 HORNER SILVERBERG STAICOVICI 112(1)/112(2)
Laura A. Dable RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

3727 Ex Parte Bottema 11/423,760 BAHR BARRETT HORNER 103(a) FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A

3736 Ex Parte Fraden 10/870,654 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Arvidson et al 10/298,129 KIMLIN PAK WARREN 103(a) DOW CORNING CORPORATION CO EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Richman 10/602,539 NAPPI MARTIN RUGGIERO 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LEE

“‘A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

AFFIRMED

3671 Ex Parte Beaufort et al 11/388,378 BAHR EXAMINER NGUYEN, MAI T
1773 Ex Parte Holmuhamedov 10/423,453 NAGUMO EXAMINER TURK, NEIL N
1632 Ex Parte Sambanis et al 11/230,363 LEBOVITZ EXAMINER SINGH, ANOOP KUMAR
1649 Ex Parte Sharif 12/425,774 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
2432 Ex Parte Stephenson 10/678,333 HAIRSTON EXAMINER LEMMA, SAMSON B
2452 Ex Parte Takano 10/388,355 LUCAS EXAMINER CHANG, JULIAN
2432 Ex Parte Thiele et al 10/650,440 HOMERE EXAMINER PERUNGAVOOR, VENKATANARAY
3718 Ex Parte Webb 10/288,298 MacDONALD EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

REHEARING

DENIED

2186 Ex Parte Barda 10/836,521 LUCAS EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN

net moneyin

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Blenke et al 10/743,222 GARRIS 102(b) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R 

It is an established legal principle that

unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and the claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation." Id. "Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Id. "[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference." Id., quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Zohar et al 10/620,080 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM2) EXAMINER VIDWAN, JASJIT S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Watson 09/893,693 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Mun 10/639,288 BAUMEISTER 103(a) LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Nair et al 11/264,452 GRIMES 101/112(1)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Brackett et al 10/749,524 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Nhan et al 10/699,193 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO