SEARCH

Showing posts with label rasmussen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rasmussen. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

reiffin, rasmussen

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Stacey et al 10/539,286 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H
1796 Ex Parte Okabe et al 10/739,122 HASTINGS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

Whether the inventor has provided adequate written description, either explicitly or inherently, must be determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because “that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment.” In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id.

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


2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Burger et al 10/675,266 HOMERE 103(a) Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation EXAMINERBETIT, JACOB F
2187 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/881,057 JEFFERY 102(b) Kenton R. Mullins Stout , Uxa, Buyan & Mullins, LLP EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Maier et al 10/838,406 WINSOR 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOA CAO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Lyons 10/704,678 ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/102(e) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C
2482 Ex Parte Liu 10/603,428 HOFF 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Shen 11/477,203 KIM 101/112(2)/103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software2162 Ex Parte Shahabi et al 10/310,667 STEPHENS 102(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) EXAMINER LY, ANH
2600 Communications2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 10/899,865 HAHN 101/102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HSU, JONI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Knetsch et al 10/835,487 GREENHUT 103(a) ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER TRAN, DIEM T
3782 Ex Parte Daves 10/986,484 SPAHN 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER SKURDAL, COREY NELSON

NEW

REVERSED

2179 Ex Parte Atkins 10/675,823 DIXON 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

3768 Ex Parte Byron 10/559,213 STAICOVICI 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

2163 Ex Parte Cookson et al 10/748,442 BARRY 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

3711 Ex Parte Gamble 11/398,408 ASTORINO 103(a) DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T

3665 Ex Parte Pando 11/026,948 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER ALSOMIRI, ISAM A

AFFIRMED

1716 Ex Parte Hichri et al 11/160,671 HANLON 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

2611 Ex Parte Trutna et al 10/733,675 FRAHM 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER AGHDAM, FRESHTEH N

2114 Ex Parte Vecoven 10/417,812 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER SCHELL, JOSEPH O

3767 Ex Parte Woodburn et al 11/368,131 HOELTER 103(a) McKeon Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

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.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

REVERSED 
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 
Ex Parte Goldberg et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP 

Ex Parte Ramji et al GREEN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 

Ex Parte Zauderer et al SCHEINER 103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
Ex Parte Ko KRATZ 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. 

Ex Parte Duffy KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 

When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because "that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment." In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id. 

 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 

Ex Parte McCormick ROBERTSON 103(a) Thompson Coburn LLP 

Ex Parte Barhorst et al GARRIS 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 
Ex Parte Chandhoke et al BARRY 102(e)/103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 
Ex Parte Nazzal WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o Park, Vaughan & Fleming LLP

2600 Communications 
Ex Parte Burbidge et al NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MOTOROLA INC 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components Ex Parte Zheng BAUMEISTER 103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 

Any judgment on obvious that is based on knowledge gleaned solely from Appellant’s disclosure is improper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

Ex Parte Lan et al HAHN 102(b)/103(a) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES, L.L.P 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
Ex Parte Francis CRAWFORD 102(e) WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 
Ex Parte Carstens SONG 102(b)/103(a) Hasse & Nesbitt LLC 

Ex Parte Kucera et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a) WARN, HOFFMANN, MILLER & LALONE, .P.C 

Ex Parte Olson et al PATE III 102(a)/102(b)/103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 

Ex Parte Schalk O’NEILL 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE LLP 

Ex Parte Wong McCARTHY 103(a) SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 
Ex Parte Wollenberg WALSH 103(a) M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
Ex Parte Gonska BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 

Ex Parte Katzenmaier et al TURNER 103(a) 3m Innovative Properties Company 

Ex Parte Post et al PATE 112(1)/103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP