samsung, diamond, nuijten

custom search

Reversed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Lin Cheng et al. 13995415 CHANG 103 NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS DECK, JASON A

1658 TRUSTEES OF TUFTS COLLEGE 13888605 HARDMAN 103 Quarles & Brady LLP/Tufts University ORWIG, KEVIN S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 PPG Industrial Ohio, Inc. 14892767 NAGUMO 102/103 PPG Industries, Inc. LISTVOYB, GREGORY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Emre Mehmet. Kiciman et al. 12761666 HUGHES 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION WONG, WILLIAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2414 NEC Corporation 14993636 STRAUSS 103 WILMERHALE/DC D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2422 AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LLC 15036563 DEJMEK 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. SATTI, HUMAM M

2447 CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC 14586512 MANTIS MERCADER 112(2)/103 CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC AGUIAR, JOHNNY B

2448 Don Bowman et al. 10853099 McMILLIN 112(1) Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP STRANGE, AARON N

2462 Polinati, Chinna et al. 13230734 McNEILL 101/103 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC BARON, HENRY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Antero Tossavainen et al. 13818225 CURCURI 102/103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC MATHEWS, CRYSTAL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2877 Oksen Toros. Baris et al. 14809774 CASHION 101/103 Entropy Matters LLC BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE

 Manufactures are articles that result from the process of manufacturing, i.e., they were produced “from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 435 (2016) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, (1980)); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Manufactures also include “the parts of a machine considered separately from the machine itself.” Samsung Elecs., 137 S. Ct. at 435 (quoting 1 W. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions § 183, p. 270 (1890)).

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) , 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3669 RENAULT s.a.s. 14376889 HOELTER 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. FOSTER, GERRAD A

3671 VSL INTERNATIONAL AG 14762511 GREENHUT 102/103 Pearne & Gordon LLP MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Yang Bae. Park 15355562 FITZPATRICK 102/103 Ballard Spahr LLP CARY, KELSEY E

3753 Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 14812758 MARSCHALL 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Power Controls, Sensing Systems WILLIAMS, PATRICK C

Affirmed-in-Part
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Colin S. Whelan et al. 15684029 WILSON 103 112(4)/103 RAYTHEON COMPANY C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP BLAN, NICOLE R

1734 Martin Karches et al. 13378082 HANLON 103 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1777 Boyle, Gavin James. et al. 14442807 COLAIANNI 103 103 BLG (BL) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP ROYCE, LIAM A

1786 Amir Hossain. Parham et al. 15676100 HASTINGS 103 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) BOHATY, ANDREW K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Marc Joye 14735099 McCARTNEY 101 101 Vincent E. Duffy THOMSON Licensing ALMAMUN, ABDULLAH

2433 Paula Buzzard 14319162 DEJMEK 103 OTDP Garlick & Markison (IH) WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA

2461 Ygdal Naouri et al. 14285028 McCARTNEY 103 103 Law Office of R. Alan Burnett, PS MIAN, OMER S

2484 Marc Rashba 12784942 KHAN 103 103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC HASAN, SYED Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3659 Dennis George. Thompson 14841513 GREENHUT 103 103 CNH Industrial America LLC SCOTT, JACOB S

3681 Dustin Moring et al. 14160490 REPKO 103 103 Lee & Hayes, P.C./Square ROJAS, HAJIME S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC. 15058016 GUIJT 103 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP KNAUSS, CHRISTIAN D

Affirmed
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Mitchell, Graeme Ramsay. et al. 13071893 WILSON 103 HONEYWELL/WICK PHILLIPS Honeywell International Inc CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN

1762 Mavridis, Harilaos et al. 12806894 COLAIANNI 103 LyondellBasell Industries BLACKWELL, GWENDOLYN

1779 Joseph W. DENDEL et al 14604184 ABRAHAM 112(2)/103 FLYNN THIEL, P.C. BASS, DIRK R

1788 Melissa Danielle. Cremer et al. 14371261 DENNETT 103 CORNING INCORPORATED GOLDEN, CHINESSA T

1792 Peter Sebastian. Slusarczyk et al. 12163684 COLAIANNI 103 Mars, Inc. c/o Mars Petcare THAKUR, VIREN A

1799 LIFECELL CORPORATION 14676289 RANGE 103/OTDP McCarter & English, LLP/LifeCell KIPOUROS, HOLLY MICHAELA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2119 Ehud (Udi) Daon 13745249 PINKERTON 112(2) 103 Brannon Sowers & Cracraft PC LINDSAY, BERNARD G

2127 CHANDRA M. ALLURI 12345084 BAUMEISTER 101/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP SHAH, KAMINI S

2129 Haiqin Wang et al. 13176236 CYGAN 103 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/BOEING MOLL, NITHYA JANAKIRAMAN

2138 Philip Jurey et al. 14632766 CRAIG 103 Hall Estill - Seagate Technology LLC EDOUARD, JEAN C

2166 HERE GLOBAL B.V. 13646587 BENNETT 101 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. PHAM, KHANH B

2174 WEINMANN GERAETE FUER MEDIZIN GMBH & CO. KG 14670737 KUMAR 112(2)/103 Abel Schillinger, LLP CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU

2195 Mark D. Yarvis et al 14105676 PYONIN 112(2)/101/103 Jordan IP Law, LLC HUARACHA, WILLY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2481 QUALCOMM Incorporated 14513121 MORGAN 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. NOH, JAE NAM

2495 SONY CORPORATION 15147427 CASS 101/103 XSENSUS LLP SHOLEMAN, ABU S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Oldcorn, David et al. 14635280 McNEILL 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. DEPT. AMD WANG, YI

2651 Espen Berger et al. 13113501 FENICK 103 Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G

2689 Francesco Attanasio 13266412 FENICK 102 103 41.50 103 SAGE PATENT GROUP/ZACCO MAHASE, PAMESHANAND

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Yazaki Corporation 14513346 STRAUSS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC CLARK, CHRISTOPHER JAY

2917 Vittorio Bologna et al. 29453426 HOSKINS 112(1) Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) MCINROY, RUTH T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 William M. Reller et al 11561832 McCARTNEY 103 101 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. HOAR, COLLEEN A

3621 William McLain Reller et al 10694643 McCARTNEY 101/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. HOAR, COLLEEN A

3623 Ashish Verma 13456362 CRAWFORD 101 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

3623 Ashish Verma 12908253 CRAWFORD 101 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

3623 Monika Gupta et al. 13598330 CHUNG 101/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN

3625 Apple Inc. 13975047 MORGAN 101/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/Apple SEIBERT, CHRISTOPHER B

3644 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 15619893 HILL 102/103 112(2)/112(4)/102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SANDERSON, JOSEPH W

3683 Christopher R. Dance et al. 14247443 BAUMEISTER 101 FAY SHARPE LLP / CONDUENT HENRY, MATTHEW D

3683 Omnex Systems, LLC 14042851 McCARTNEY 103 101 Brooks Kushman KARMIS, ALISSA D

3688 Justin Xavier. Howe 14521759 THOMAS 103 101 Mastercard International Incorporated c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC MACASIANO, MARILYN G

3689 ZONAR SYSTEMS, INC. 15231142 BAYAT 101 102/103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP FISHER, PAUL R

3691 Stuart Fraser et al. 13550011 CRAIG 112(1) 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. AKINTOLA, OLABODE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Keith A. Raniere 12272941 GREENHUT 101 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS THAI, XUAN MARIAN

3726 John M. Armacost et al. 14548370 HOUSEL Dissenting MCGEE 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) BESLER, CHRISTOPHER JAMES

3741 United Technologies Corporation 14740636 STEPINA 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BURKE, THOMAS P

3771 Richard S. Ginn 13673898 HOSKINS 112(1)/112(2)/103 Acuity IP, LLC MANNAN, MIKAIL A

3783 EKOS Corporation 13726105 PLENZLER 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP LEE, BRANDY SCOTT

Rehearing

Denied
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2877 David Crowther 14697760 DENNETT 103 Brooks Kushman BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3697 Harold, Michelle et al. 14494267 DROESCH 101 WILLIAMS MORGAN, P.C. GREGG, MARY M

nuijten, chakrabarty, ferguson2, gottschalk, miller2, aristocrat, function media, finisar

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Lorentsen et al 10553869 - (D) PRATS 103 HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. SWOPE, SHERIDAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Schilder 10580643 - (D) KRATZ 102 SHELL OIL COMPANY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Chan et al 10907161 - (D) HUGHES 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NOFAL, CHRISTOPHER P

2161 Ex Parte Elsaesser et al 11168551 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP NGUYEN, CINDY

2193 Ex Parte Eichenberger et al 10919005 - (D) HUGHES 103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) WANG, JUE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Ross et al 10371338 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 37 CFR 41.40(b) 112(2) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED NGUYEN, THUONG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Chow et al 11265918 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Zilbershtein et al 11482608 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AVAYA, Inc. Cochran Freund & Young GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11083913 - (D) HOFF 102/103 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC DASGUPTA, SOUMYA

Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:

i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007);

ii. a naturally occurring organism, Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308;

iii. a human per se, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011);

iv. a legal contractual agreement between two parties, see In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cert. denied);

v. a game defined as a set of rules;

vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72;

vii. a company, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366; and

viii. a mere arrangement of printed matter, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, ___ (CCPA 1969).

MPEP 2106

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) , 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107.01

Ferguson,In re, 558 F.3d 1359, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2106

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) 706.03(a), 2106,

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10540597 - (D) ZECHER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CHOKSHI, PINKAL R

2443 Ex Parte Bravery et al 10555433 - (D) HUGHES 103 101/103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC SHIN, KYUNG H

2452 Ex Parte Dresden 10776689 - (D) HUGHES 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, THU V

2456 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11168650 - (D) McKONE 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHANG, TOM Y

2456 Ex Parte Newton et al 10598988 - (D) MOORE 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MCADAMS, BRAD

For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under § 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc, 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform the general purpose computer or processor to a special purpose processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Id. at 1338. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 23 (5th ed. 2002). An applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

An indefiniteness rejection under § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or processor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38. Mere reference to a general purpose computer or processor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or to “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function is not an adequate disclosure. Id. at 1334; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41. In addition, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification, while saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that those functions are performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337. The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose processor to a special purpose processor so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1338.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Moss et al 11553671 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BAHL, SANGEETA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Swanson et al 11527188 - (D) KILE 112(1)/112(2)/103 PRATT & WHITNEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS c/o CPA Global KIM, TAE JUN

3752 Ex Parte Roreger et al 10534797 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug HWU, DAVIS D  

REEXAMINATION  
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex parte PROTECTCONNECT, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90011275 6341981 09/553,425 ARBES 102/103 DLA PIPER LLP US WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GILMAN, ALEXANDER
 
3686 Ex Parte CAREFUSION 303, INC. Ex Parte Schlotterbeck et al 90011697 90/009,912 7,835,927 10/331,034 FITZPATRICK 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP FOSTER, JIMMY G original RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11648944 - (R) FLOYD 102/103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD. FACC HICKS, VICTORIA J
 

media techs, nuijten, tiffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10469391 - (D) GREEN 103 Merck BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choperena et al 10793455 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 K&L GATES LLP YOO, REGINA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Purwin 11037177 - (D) STRAUSS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CLEARY, THOMAS J

2175 Ex Parte Martyn 10343333 - (D) McNAMARA 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON LLP VU, THANH T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Jagger et al 11496249 - (D) BONILLA 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Yang et al 11745283 - (D) WALSH 102/103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP YANG, NELSON C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Axen et al 11995979 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 102/103 GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Sayal et al 10918587 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, KHANH B

We disagree with the Appellants. The specification does not clearly define “tangible” or a “computer readable medium.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “tangible computer readable medium” encompasses a transitory, propagating signal. Given that a medium can be both tangible and transitory, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that a “tangible computer readable medium” as broadly claimed encompasses a transitory, propagating signal. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter. Examples include physical but transitory forms of signal transmission such as radio broadcasts, electrical signals through a wire, and light pulses through a fiber-optic cable, that convey encoded information. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Rajagopalan et al 10828023 - (D) GARRIS 103 Applied Materials BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1733 Ex Parte Mukai et al 10566433 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1742 Ex Parte Zhamu et al 11899008 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Bor Z. Jang SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

1754 Ex Parte McTeer 11370269 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) BAND, MICHAEL A

Claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).

1761 Ex Parte Lifchits 11789664 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 Christie Parker & Hale LLP NGUYEN, HAIDUNG D

1792 Ex Parte Lonergan 11564428 - (D) OWENS 103 General Mills CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Okawa et al 10891796 - (D) DIXON 103 IBM CORPORATION RUIZ, ARACELIS

2195 Ex Parte Broussard et al 10762000 - (D) BUI 103 IBM Austin HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TO, JENNIFER N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et al 11045515 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2448 Ex Parte Aloni et al 11269005 - (D) GONSALVES 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Nastacio 11382364 - (D) DILLON 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Curey et al 09821537 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. LEE, PHILIP C

2644 Ex Parte Rosen et al 11096869 - (D) GONSALVES 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2659 Ex Parte Weiser 10177685 - (D) GONSALVES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A

2685 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10684583 - (D) HUME 103 Lewis and Roca LLP POPE, DARYL C
 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Theuss 11865122 - (D) GONSALVES 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA BAISA, JOSELITO SASIS
 
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent and Cross-Appellant and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester 95000250 6452863 09/492,982 EASTHOM 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN

See Application of Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) (commercial success evidence of thermoplastic foam cups is not commensurate in scope with broad claims directed to thermoplastic foam containers). 

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness. See Media Techs. Licensing, LLC v. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 2010 WL 2897876 (Oct. 04, 2010) (“Even if [the patentee] could establish the required nexus, a highly successful product alone would not overcome the strong showing of obviousness.”).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Lu 11272448 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

gordon, nuijten, rasmussen, chiron, superguide, e-pass,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dalvit 10454898 SCHEINER 103(a) BERNSTEIN.SCULLY, SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER 

Ex Parte Schwartz et al 10754861 GRIMES 112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Devine et al 10490422 NAGUMO 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 

Ex Parte Basheer et al 11099399 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC 

Ex Parte Chiang et al 10921604 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP 

If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. 

In re Gordon,733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

Ex Parte Fan 10642852 NAGUMO 103(a) GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

Ex Parte Fischer et al 10445146 TIMM 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Gartland et al 10956440 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 

Ex Parte Ohtani et al 10946072 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Chen et al 10612542 HUGHES 101 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP

Thus, we find that Appellants’ claimed tangible machine readable media does not implicate a non-statutory carrier wave or a signal modulated by a carrier over a transmission medium. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357; Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106 

Ex Parte Djugash et al 10901591 SIU 102(e) IBM CORPORATION 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte REINMULLER 08732408 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Frippiat et al 10182064 GRIMES 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. 

Ex Parte Itoh et al 10214371 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Chou et al 11157895 McKELVEY 102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) E.I. duPONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY 

Ex Parte Simmons 10870608 HANLON 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Jung et al 10385464 HUGHES 101/112(1)/132(a)/102(b) North Star Intellectual Property Law, PC

(“a rejection of an amended claim under § 132 is equivalent to a rejection under § 112, first paragraph”) (quoting In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214 (CCPA 1981)); see also Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. , 363 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The written description requirement prevents applicants from . . . . add[ing] new matter to their disclosures . . . defeating an accurate accounting of the priority of invention. See 35 U.S.C. 132.”) 

Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06

Chiron v. Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 70 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.03, 2164.05(a)

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Quine 10650511 MARTIN 103(a) Pitney Bowes Inc. 

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

Ex Parte Haskell et al 10252972 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) Siemens Corporation 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Khosravi et al 10461106 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.

Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim under consideration must be consistent with the specification, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01 

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01

Ex Parte Sun et al 10279769 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. 

Ex Parte Zawilinski et al 10930329 MEDLEY 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.