SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label pitney bowes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pitney bowes. Show all posts

Monday, May 26, 2014

pitney bowes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Hellwig et al 11957476 - (D) KIMLIN 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP CHAU, LISA N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 11839868 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 IBM Corp. (END/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. HO, RUAY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Gerber et al 12207166 - (D) KUMAR 103 AT&T Legal Department - AS VU, HOANG-CHUONG Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2843 Ex Parte Cho 12135659 - (D) KRATZ 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. LEE, BENNY T
DENIED 2491 Ex Parte Smith et al 11430126 - (D) MORGAN 112(1) Jackson Walker LLP BECHTEL, KEVIN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Margolin 11736356 - (D) GERSTENBLITH Dissenting-in-Part CAPP 103 103 JED MARGOLIN MANCHO, RONNIE M

The phrase “for safely flying an unmanned aerial vehicle in civilian airspace” does not appear to warrant significant patentable weight because it merely recites a purpose or an intended use of the system. See, e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that if “the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation” (citations omitted)).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Swalla et al 12136383 - (D) OWENS 103 GE Licensing THOMAS, CIEL P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Macchletti et al 11707328 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 BGL/Accenture - Chicago BRINKS GILSON & LIONE MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Gopal 11600894 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Anderson Gorecki & Rouille LLP MURPHY, CHARLES C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Torelli et al 11963145 - (D) GARRIS 103 ADDMG -- ST (foreign-originated only) REIDLINGER, RONALD LANCE

2828 Ex Parte Ridderbusch 12227748 - (D) HASTINGS dissenting NAGUMO 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HAGAN, SEAN P

2875 Ex Parte Freeman et al 12151925 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 OSRAM SYLVANIA INC GRAMLING, SEAN P

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 NETFLIX, INC. Requester v. MEDIA QUEUE, LLC Patent Owner Ex Parte 7389243 et al 10/771,049 95000469 - (D) SIU 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/112(2)/103 Law Office of J. Nicholas Gross, Prof. Corp. CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 SPX CORPORATION Respondent, Requester v. S√úDMO HOLDING GMBH Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,891,376 et al 12/184,725 95001834 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 102/103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC Third Party Requester: FISCH, HOFFMAN, SIGLER LLP KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original LEE, KEVIN L

Friday, May 3, 2013

cordis, allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1711 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 11828560 - (D) GARRIS 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) CORMIER, DAVID G

1791 Ex Parte Cross et al 11206424 - (D) TIMM 103 Hovey Williams LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte NARAYAN et al 11462577 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. ALAM, SHAHID AL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Baugh 11649872 - (D) HORNER 102/103 BENTON F. BAUGH MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 11668800 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The preamble of claim 8 recites “[a] method for use by a secure client associated with a user device” (emphasis added). “Generally,” [the Federal Circuit has] said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.Cir.1999). We conclude that the preamble of claim 1 does give life and meaning to the steps of the claim and will construe “for use by a secure client.”

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1726 Ex Parte SENOO et al 09162992 - (D) PAK 103 K&L Gates LLP DOVE, TRACY MAE

1766 Ex Parte Dessinges et al 12348542 - (D) BEST 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION TOSCANO, ALICIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Sangili et al 11176121 - (D) SMITH 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WANG, VICTOR W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Yoshihara 10613577 - (D) McKONE 103 TEKTRONIX, INC. WANG, TED M  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Alarcon et al 10428295 - (D) PRATS 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP YANG, NELSON C

Thursday, December 6, 2012

mayo, bilski, pitney bowes, boehringer, corkill, maziere, mentor, merck2, pharmastem, susi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M

3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).

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

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...

See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA

1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N

2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN

The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

Appellant argues that

MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:

The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...

  Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.

Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)

3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD

Monday, October 17, 2011

storage tech., allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes, symantec, IMS, american medical

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Squibbs et al 11/035,801 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Schrader et al 10/967,022 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M


Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed.Cir. 2003). While there is no simple test for determining when a preamble limits claim scope, we have set forth some general principles to guide that inquiry. “Generally,” we have said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809. If the preamble “is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed.Cir. 2000).

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2111.02

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . .2111.02

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .2181, 2183, 2184

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dijk et al 11/699,692 McKELVEY 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chane et al 10/306,752 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e)/103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Friday, September 30, 2011

herr, KCJ, pitney bowes

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Jimenez Mayorga et al 10/555,286 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1631 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11/172,492 PRATS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP(Medtr Minimed) EXAMINER RIGGS II, LARRY D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte KARAMI et al 11/781,543 McCOLLUM 103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1772 Ex Parte Siskin et al 11/256,728 WARREN 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M

In the Reply Brief, Appellants submit that the “new and more extensive record on the present application” makes “irrelevant” the Examiner’s determination that the claimed processes in the prior and present Appeals are “essentially equivalent.” Reply Br. 1, citing and quoting In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 611 (CCPA 1967) (the issue in any appeal is whether appellant is entitled to allowance of the claims “in the application and record” on appeal).

Herr, In re, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(w)

1778 Ex Parte Dart et al 11/545,393 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Trivedi 10/097,934 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Fuccello et al 11/001,436 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Blodgett et al 11/872,628 BARRETT 112(1) INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Frauhammer et al 11/157,019 BAHR 103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Kuebelbeck 10/592,017 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1766 Ex Parte Rappoport et al 11/478,455 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Sabiers et al 10/387,614 TURNER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kilroy et al 11/298,438 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HOANG, ANN THI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Ravikumar et al 11/462,049 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FEENEY, BRETT A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Perez 11/533,075 LEBOVITZ 103(a) 112(1) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING


REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1773 Ex Parte 7090906 et al ANEMOSTAT PRODUCTS and TECHNICAL GLASS PRODUCTS Requesters and Respondents v. Patent of O’KEEFFE’S, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,010, 95/001,020 & 90/010,016 10/238,115 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JONES DAY FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NICHOLAS J. TUCCILLO McCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ROBERT F. SCOTTI KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER CHEN, VIVIAN

The term “a” is an indefinite article which is customarily interpreted to mean “at least one,” permitting the inclusion of additional elements which are not recited in the claim. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1111 Ex Parte 6219674 et al Ex parte CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,638 08/184,900 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. FOR THE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES B. MONROE FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BANANKHAH, MAJID A original EXAMINER SKAPARS, ANTHONY

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 7291182 et al Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant 90/009,310 09/121,300 DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ohmi et al 10/363,640 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1732 Ex Parte Gulevich et al 10/594,780 KIMLIN 103(a) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER
QIAN, YUN

1747 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/860,742 HANLON 103(a) John D. DeLong The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1762 Ex Parte Kirchmeyer et al 10/627,162 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

1764 Ex Parte Meng et al 11/841,466 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

1771 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/873,714 HANLON 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER
TOOMER, CEPHIA D

1771 Ex Parte Chambard et al 10/947,093 FRANKLIN 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER OLADAPO, TAIWO

1778 Ex Parte Haase 10/413,849 WARREN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) RICHARD A. HAASE (INVENTOR) EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/257,802 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAUL L

2177 Ex Parte Gibson 10/366,091 KRIVAK 103(a) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2181 Ex Parte Claseman 10/846,724 POTHIER 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER DEWS, BROOKE J

2185 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11/357,473 KRIVAK 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN

2186 Ex Parte Nobunaga et al 11/042,256 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Negishi et al 09/931,577 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, P.L.L.C EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lurkens et al 10/509,410 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

2811 Ex Parte Kavalieros et al 11/581,183 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, MEIYA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kalley et al 10/093,460 DANG 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sawyer 11/395,994 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

“If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . 2111.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Purcell et al 10/648,590 McCARTHY 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ROANE, AARON F

Monday, May 24, 2010

pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 
Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 
Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 
Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES
Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .
Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).
The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303