IPXL, schreiber, ratti

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Itou et al 10581858 - (D) TIMM 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP LEONG, JONATHAN G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte White et al 11213349 - (D) GARRIS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX MILLER, MICHAEL G

1761 Ex Parte Terada et al 10823654 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE-265550 DOUYON, LORNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chen et al 11874758 - (D) McKONE 101/103 IBM CORPORATION BELCHER, HERMAN A

We note that if we were to construe claim 8 to require selecting email addresses on a user computer system, the result would be a claim that impermissibly recites a method step and apparatus limitations. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

2453 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10253283 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC NGUYEN, THU HA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Foth et al 11321589 - (D) KIM 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. HAYES, JOHN W

3688 Ex Parte Wirth et al 10277162 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Phan 10986820 - (D) WOOD dissenting SPAHN 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company PICKETT, JOHN G

A claim reciting an apparatus may be anticipated by a reference disclosing a device that includes each and every structural limitation in the claim and that is capable of performing each and every functional limitation in the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (upholding the Board’s affirmance of a rejection under section 102(b) on the basis of a finding that a device disclosed in a prior art reference was capable of performing a function which the appellant alleged to distinguish the appellant’s apparatus from the device).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...

I am persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s modification of “provid[ing] the APA with a freely movable blocking member” 17 as taught by vom Hofe would render APA unfit for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of APA. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (Emphasis added)). In Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. Id. at 811-13. This modification fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how a sealed interface was attained.

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

cohesive tech, schreiber, swinehart

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Snyder et al 10821745 - (D) MCCOLLUM 103 DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC GHALI, ISIS A D

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Mooring et al 11015968 - (D) HASTINGS 103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Ainsworth et al 11453881 - (D) WINSOR 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KUNDU, SUJOY K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Canter et al 11521672 - (D) COCKS 102/103 Boeing - GATES & COOPER LLP GREEN, RICHARD R

3653 Ex Parte Nago et al 11253872 - (D) McCARTHY 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. BEAUCHAINE, MARK J

For example, in Re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Board found that a spout useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can anticipate a claim reciting a “dispensing top for passing only several kernels of a popped popcorn at a time from an open-ended container filled with popcorn.” Id at 1475. The Court held that,

where the Patent [& Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.

Id. at 1478 (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971)). Our reviewing court agreed with the Board that the Examiner had articulated a reason to believe that the prior art spout inherently possessed the dimensions necessary to perform the function of “passing only several kernels of a popped popcorn at a time from an open-ended container filled with popcorn.” Id at 1478. Alternatively, the court agreed with the Board’s fact finding that the prior art spout was “capable of functioning to dispense kernels of popped corn in the manner set forth in claim 1.” Id. On these alternative bases, our reviewing court affirmed the rejection.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Swinehart, In re, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . .2114, 2173.01, 2173.05(g), 2183

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Chenvainu et al 11114987 - (D) FREDMAN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11646203 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BARROW, AMANDA J

When "about" is used as part of a numeric range, "the use of the word `about,' avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context." In determining how far beyond the claimed range the term "about" extends the claim, "[w]e must focus ... on the criticality of the [numerical limitation] to the invention." Cohesive Techs, Inc. v. Waters Corp. 543 F.3d 1351, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Citations omitted)

1732 Ex Parte Galligan 12335903 - (D) BEST 103/double patenting BASF CORPORATION LI, JUN

1742 Ex Parte Bradford et al 11566973 - (D) OWENS 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP JOHNSON, CHRISTINA ANN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Asmussen et al 09921057 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD DAYE, CHELCIE L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Wen 11050050 - (D) PRATS 103 ALIGN TECHNOLOGY C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3739 Ex Parte Friedman et al 11196831 - (D) GRIMES 103 EVELYN M. SOMMER SMITH, KAITLYN ELIZABETH  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Murthy 11388300 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ORACLE / HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER

WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J