ngai, gulack, lowry, curry, mathias

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Morgan 10979014 - (D) WIEDER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Kallio et al 13411189 - (D) COURTENAY 102 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP MONIKANG, GEORGE C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Zuge et al 12010930 - (D) BROWNE 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP DICKSON, PAUL N

3682 Ex Parte Stefanik et al 12235159 - (D) BAHR 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G MYHRE, JAMES W

Our reviewing court has held that nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). ...

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Unlike the data structures in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the user information of Appellants’ invention does not “provide increased efficiency in computer operation[s].” See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1580, 1584; cf. Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274–75 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (discussing computer-related situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (same).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11906112 - (D) PRAISS 112(1)/112(2)/101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11904016 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11524084 - (D) PRAISS 101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 12599896 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Ha et al 11307382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP ULLAH, ELIAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12070387 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Potekhin et al 10144561 - (D) KOHUT 112(1)/103 101 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. TANG, KAREN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Xu et al 11707812 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12217899 - (D) GARRIS 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11213577 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MACCORD MASON PLLC IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Finally, while claim 1 does recite “transaction data that represents a single client expenditure with a merchant in exchange for a plurality of products,” the manner or degree of representation is unspecified, and there is no recital of a sale, only an expenditure in exchange for products. Thus, this limitation is aspirational instead of functional or structural, and is perceptible only in the mind of the beholder.

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir.1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983)

[T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.”. . . . see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non-precedential). Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 2010). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the limitation).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
DONNER 6: 179; 8: 395, 1924

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Shiping 11862389 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP NERANGIS, VICKEY M

1784 Ex Parte Zhai et al 10912576 - (D) KALAN 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Klein et al 11781374 - (D) HUME 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 11469680 - (D) STRAUSS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kraufvelin 11436772 - (D) BUI 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. TORRES, MARCOS L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Requester, Respondent v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001654 6,890,324 09/894,042 MARTIN 305/102/103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KIDWELL, MICHELE M

king, ngai, nehls, kao

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Kraft 11239708 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! CHAU, DUNG K

When the only distinguishing factor between a method and the prior art is the nature of information being manipulated, the invention is not patentable unless the information has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the otherwise known method. See King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For example, if the invention is no more than using a computer to facilitate manipulating information that previously would have been manipulated by less efficient means (e.g., manually), “the nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex partes Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Similarly, a limitation that merely informs a user of the benefits of performing the remainder of the method is not functional. See King Pharm., 616 F.3d at 1279; In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Cf. Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339 (addition of a set of written instructions to an otherwise known kit did not distinguish the claimed kit from the prior art).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Gabor 11858025 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ERIC GABOR RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Barr et al 10641365 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FORD, JOHN K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Kong 11195461 - (D) FETTING 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BOSWELL, BETH V

3625 Ex Parte WILLIS 11736675 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2)/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW ZUKANOVICH, BRANDY A

3633 Ex Parte Stavenjord 10675548 - (D) BUNTING 102/103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3661 Ex Parte Sutardja 11338978 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. BEHNCKE, CHRISTINE M

3665 Ex Parte Stoschek et al 11395705 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP ALGAHAIM, HELAL A
3679 Ex Parte Stringer 11371866 - (D) HILL 112(2)/103 EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

3683 Ex Parte Flockhart et al 10673105 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

fracalossi, seattle box, york prod., ngai, kohler, mills, bozek, boe

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Alzer et al 11/341,253 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Lo 11/047,057 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hild et al 10/775,601 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3723 Ex Parte Emami et al 11/063,653 O’NEILL 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J

3761 Ex Parte Fields 11/124,337 SPAHN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, GINGER T

3729 Ex Parte Nishii et al 10/517,445 O’NEILL 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Uhlemann 11/039,392 KOHUT 103(a) 103(a) Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) EXAMINER ZHOU, YONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Walker et al 09/939,239 McCARTHY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F

In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)(evidence sufficient to establish lack of novelty also establishes a prima facie case of obviousness)
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/934,064 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER IQBAL, NADEEM

2184 Ex Parte Von Stein et al 10/532,666 JEFFERY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS

2188 Ex Parte Bonola 10/980,538 DANG 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

2829 Ex Parte Krieger et al 11/078,873 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER TRAN, LONG K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/274,961 BROCKETTI 102(a)/103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER WOJCIECHOWICZ, EDWARD JOSEPH

Appellants‟ claim language uses the phrase “substantially aligned”. “When a word of degree is used [it is necessary to] determine whether the… specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co.. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that nothing in Appellants‟ Specification, except for Appellants‟ own drawings, for providing some standard for measuring that degree. Therefore, we construe the term “substantially aligned” as “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Masterson et al 10/334,548 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q

3671 Ex Parte Kroening 11/029,163 O’NEILL 103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

Printed matter may patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there is a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To show a new and unobvious functional relationship, it has to be shown that the printed matter would not achieve its purpose without the substrate and the substrate without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. Id. at 1339.

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Wan 11/183,354 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
REHEARING

GRANTED, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

moncla, broadcom, ventana, martek, arlington, curtiss-wright, Phillips, ngai, king

REVERSED

1735 Ex Parte Ozkan et al 11/410,267 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER POLYANSKY, ALEXANDER

2111 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/942,351 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2163 Ex Parte Feinberg 11/033,646 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

2187 Ex Parte Kallahalla et al 10/959,536 BARRY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

When all other rejections on appeal have been reversed, and the only remaining rejection is a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, it is premature to address the provisional rejection. Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1648 Ex Parte Wolff et al 11/828,272 GRIMES 102(b)/112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S

1731 Ex Parte Wanninger et al 10/058,832 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words of expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”). Substantive differences between the claims “can be a ‘useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.’” Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also, Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laim differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3623 Ex Parte Schroeder et al 10/302,406 KIM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

3654 Ex Parte Szentistvany 10/524,122 BARRETT 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3738 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/106,421 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
AFFIRMED

1736 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/582,593 GAUDETTE 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

2128 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 10/747,967 HUGHES 102(e)/102(b) RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP EXAMINER SILVER, DAVID

2617 Ex Parte Stephens 10/875,753 NAPPI 103(a) Thorpe North & Western LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

3761 Ex Parte Long et al 11/511,573 GREENHUT 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

First, Appellants are not entitled to patent a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See also, King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

diamond2, sterling, miller2, gulack, ngai

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Slungaard et al 10/427,271 GRIMES 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1641 Ex Parte Chandler et al 11/027,652 WALSH 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Saha et al 11/392,381 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Latorse et al 10/553,363 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

See e.g., In re Diamond, 360 F.2d 214, 217 (CCPA 1966) (affirming obviousness where the evidence showed that synergy was expected because combined drugs targeted different cellular mechanisms, and no evidence to the contrary was produced).

1619 Ex Parte Bush 10/759,970 HASTINGS 103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1628 Ex Parte Rau 11/263,976 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steven B. Kelber Berenato & White, LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1657 Ex Parte Doyle et al 11/701,848 GREEN 102(b) JONES DAY EXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Bergeron 12/003,735 GREEN 102(b) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

1722 Ex Parte Lungu 11/296,902 TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

2184 Ex Parte Baugher et al 11/299,916 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STEVEN G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Fiden et al 10/428,516 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P

3728 Ex Parte Charng 10/887,911 SPAHN 102(b) BERENATO & WHITE, LLC EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM

[P]atentability cannot be predicated on printing alone. In re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, 912 (CCPA 1934).

Printed matter can patentability distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the claimed printed matter and the claimed substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The PTO has the better argument”).

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(a)

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

NEW

REVERSED

1781 Ex Parte Ammann et al 10/564,452 GREEN 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

1765 Ex Parte Nguyen 11/732,389 TIMM 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1623 Ex Parte Bostrom et al 10/582,308 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D

2628 Ex Parte Han et al 10/957,032 HAHN 102(a)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M

3626 Ex Parte Logue 11/013,927 FISCHETTI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Ames et al 10/842,758 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,581 ZECHER 103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

3731 Ex Parte Kantor et al 10/827,819 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

2444 Ex Parte Wilding et al 10/401,413 CHEN 102(e) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

ngai

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Mumaw 11/136,157 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) TIMOTHY M. BARLOW EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

The content or meaning of printed matter recited in a claim does not structurally distinguish the subject matter of the claim from prior art unless there is a new or nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the remainder of the claimed subject matter. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2164 Ex parte ABLAISE LIMITED 90/010,311 6,961,737 SIU 102(a)/102(e) For Patent Owner: NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC For Third Party Requester: Linda J. Thayer, Esq. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H original EXAMINER RONES, CHARLES

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3712 MEGA BRANDS AMERICA, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of HASBRO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,098 6,729,932 SONG 112(2)/103(a)/double patenting For Patent Owner: MILLER, MATTHIAS & HULL LLP (HASBRO) For Third Party Requester: MICHEAL R. FRISCIA MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP (Hasbro) original EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JAMILA O
AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Rincavage et al 10/086,253 TURNER 103(a) Philip D. Freedman PC EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D

NEW

REVERSED

1713 Ex Parte Gu et al 11/229,825 KRATZ 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALANKO, ANITA KAREN

1782 Ex Parte Tan 10/644,435 NAGUMO 103(a) BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

REEXAMINATION

2161 TALEO CORPORATION Respondent, Cross-Appellant v. KENEXA BRASSRING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,060 6,996,561 SIU 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER AMSBURY, WAYNE P

AFFIRMED

1767 Ex Parte Grooms et al 11/487,622 GUEST 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

2166 Ex Parte Narang et al 10/982,475 DESHPANDE 103(a) Ojanen Law Offices EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN

REMANDED

2478 Ex Parte Bornstein et al 11/266,661 BARTLETT amendment after final IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER MYERS, JASMINE

3634 Ex Parte Daume 10/950,503 BARTLETT reply brief not considered SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

2475 Ex Parte Mirtorabi et al 11/292,535 BARTLETT amendment after final CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER KAVLESKI, RYAN C

Phillips, gulack, diamond1, ngai, lowry, cruciferous, MEHL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Pacetti et al 11/487,059 GRIMES 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Leistra et al 10/698,659 KRATZ 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gernold 10/784,196 MacDONALD 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/406,651 MacDONALD 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

While a general-usage dictionary can be helpful in understanding claim language, a general dictionary “cannot overcome art-specific evidence of the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

2471 Ex Parte Barron 10/401,236 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/893,216 SAADAT 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gass 10/944,535 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Barbour 11/045,703 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, AKILILU K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Booth et al 11/250,043 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, SU C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bruck 10/912,302 GRIMES 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU MINH

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Hamamjy et al 11/114,261 OWENS 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,667 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barghouthi 11/186,600 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2175 Ex Parte Balinsky et al 11/190,436 DANG 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2186 Ex Parte Xu et al 11/224,418 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Cross et al 11/154,897 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SERROU, ABDELALI

The subject matter presented in claim 1 on appeal relates to features that differ from the prior art solely on the basis of “non-functional descriptive material,” which is generally not given patentable weight when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter. See id. at 1384; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed Cir. 1994).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
2629 Ex Parte Goodwin et al 11/122,610 RUGGIERO 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Viswanathan 11/400,850 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAI L

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gass 10/984,643 PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

In order for the Examiner to show that a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art, the Examiner must establish that the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with or includes the claim limitation. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02

warmerdam, foster, lowry, ngai, mathias,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Han et al 11158047 OWENS 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Davis et al 11086943 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) JACKSON WALKER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Butzer et al 11062777 HASTINGS 103(a) Mr. Edward J. Timmer EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Heikes et al 11021009 HUGHES 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER TAKELE, MESEKER 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Park 10377746 DIXON 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Eisenberg et al 09974321 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R 

According to current Office policy, computer programs per se are not considered patentable subject matter under §101, as they are in themselves purely non-functional descriptive constructs. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 2009, at 2, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. Also see MPEP § 2106.01 (I), citing In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

Ex Parte Foster et al 09931123 LORIN 101/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S 

Patentable weight need not be given to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate (here the system). See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338. See also, Ex parte Mathias, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (CCPA sic [Fed. Cir.] 2006). 

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01 

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01