schreiber, hewlett-packard, boehringer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Fox 12371895 - (D) SMITH 103 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Goldberg et al 12296201 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Pacey et al 11791815 - (D) STEPHENS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP WEATHERFORD, SYVILA

3752 Ex Parte Weis et al 12032150 - (D) KERINS 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Mulder et al 12076732 - (D) SMITH 102(e) 102e)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) ASFAW, MESFIN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Kish et al 12016110 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 102/103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. KHATIB, RAMI

At the outset, we note that the limitation “for displaying system condition information” is a functional limitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2112 , 2114
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

3686 Ex Parte Imai et al 11817217 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HOLCOMB, MARK

We find that such “configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the processing device which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte ECKEL et al 12338026 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1) 103 Miles & Stockbridge, PC PAK, HANNAH J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Wexler et al 12105092 - (D) PERRY 102(e)/103 VMWare, INC. EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Auriemma et al 12205470 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Sanches 12004359 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 NCR Corporation STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

2891 Ex Parte Michael et al 12262288 - (D) HANLON 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FULK, STEVEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Le et al 11716374 - (D) MURPHY 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DUFFY, DAVID W

3748 Ex Parte Birch et al 11992454 - (D) WOODS 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al 07/712,359 95002082 - (D) MARTIN 103 Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. original COHEN, PONTANI & LIEBERMAN FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,167,938 B1 et al 12/799,643 95002083 - (D) MARTIN 103 EDWIN H. CRABTREE REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,441,315 et al 09/189,761 90009843 - (D) JEFFERSON 102/103 102/103 Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original CUNEO, KAMAND

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 MICRO–PROBE INCORPORATED, Requester and Cross–Appellant, v. FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,825,422 et al 10/174,455 95000583 - (D) JEFFERSON 102(e)/102/103 KEN BURRASTON/FORMFACTOR KIRTON & MCCONKIE Rimmell, Samuel original PATEL, ISHWARBHAI B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Requester v. ORBUSNEICH MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7942922 et al 12/878,341 95001769 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ARNOLD & PORTER LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original STROUD, JONATHAN R

gardiner, schreiber

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Muller et al 11839857 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP PAPPAS, PETER

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Wager et al 10679836 - (D) KIM 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. RAJ, RAJIV J

3633 Ex Parte Torres 12290754 - (D) BUNTING 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 AQUATIC CO. C/O TOMKINS Limited, IP LAW DEPT. 10-A3 KENNY, DANIEL J

See In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) (“the patentability of apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely upon a use, function, or result thereof”). See also In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming rejection of appellant’s claim directed to a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn based on factual finding that the prior art structure would be capable of dispensing popcorn).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
DONNER 7: 736, 758, 938-40
HARMON 3: 21, 87, 98; 4: 229; 19: 419

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2411 Olympic Developments AG, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 90011791 5,475,585 08/191,143 LEBOVITZ 103 103 Hershkovitz & Associates, PLLC KE, PENG original MCELHENY JR, DONALD E

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 FACEBOOK, INC. Requester v. FRANK M. WEYER and TROY K. JAVAHER Patent Owners 95001411 7,644,122 11/623,132 COCKS TECHCOASTLAW THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HEIDI KEEFE, COOLEY LLP TON, MY TRANG original ISMAIL, SHAWKI SAIF

clearvalue, therasense, sanofi, schreiber, spada, bond

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Hibst et al 10567029 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. PATEL, SMITA S

1772 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12293602 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PREGLER, SHARON

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the chemical microreactor integrated in a single chip illustrated in Villa's Figure 5 as disclosed in paragraphs 0052 and 0053 as well as paragraph 0064 of the reference, would have in fact described to one skilled in the art an embodiment that contains all claim elements arranged as specified in claim 1, either expressly or inherently, in a manner enabling one skilled in the art to practice the embodiment without undue experimentation,  Ans. 4-5, 8-9; App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-5. See, e.g., ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F. 3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Therasence, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir, 1997); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

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

Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2112.01

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131, 2183, 2184

1773 Ex Parte Wetherill 12080341 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 CORNING INCORPORATED WOODARD, JOYE L

1777 Ex Parte Schachtrup et al 11572182 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. KEYWORTH, PETER

1792 Ex Parte Baker et al 10761008 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(1)/112(2)/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. LEFF, STEVEN N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Christ et al 11298444 - (D) EVANS 102 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SHMATOV, ALEXEY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Hardacker et al 11726560 - (D) HUGHES 102 Sony Corp of America - EVS LEE, MICHAEL

2424 Ex Parte Angel et al 10207837 - (D) JEFFERSON 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 OHLANDT GREELEY RUGGIERO & PERLE L.L.P. NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2431 Ex Parte Edwards et al 11069484 - (D) CHEN 102 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC WRIGHT, BRYAN F

2434 Ex Parte Wei 10997357 - (D) Per curiam 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/101 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. WYSZYNSKI, AUBREY H

2455 Ex Parte Ly et al 11678978 - (D) DANG 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. LAZARO, DAVID R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Jain et al 11373082 - (D) EVANS 112(1)/102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED KARIKARI, KWASI

2643 Ex Parte KIM et al 11761736 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HTUN, SAN A

2646 Ex Parte Ye 11731680 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LAI, DANIEL
REVERSED 2672 Ex Parte Gonzalez et al 10571076 - (D) PRATS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

2691 Ex Parte Levin et al 11156172 - (D) THOMAS 103 Gerald W. Maliszewski WALTHALL, ALLISON N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2812 Ex Parte Ramaswamy et al 10932151 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Wells St. John P.S. POMPEY, RON EVERETT

2823 Ex Parte Knapp et al 10548563 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC JEFFERSON, QUOVAUNDA

2828 Ex Parte Byren et al 11657215 - (D) OWENS 103 Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP (Raytheon) STAFFORD, PATRICK

2878 Ex Parte Van Dam et al 11353230 - (D) OWENS 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) HOWARD, RYAN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Brandom et al 11335771 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP ROGERS, JAMES WILLIAM

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Brown et al 11468838 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP NGUYEN, STEVE N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Galvin et al 11946815 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC RUBIN, BLAKE J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Jung et al 11901240 - (D) HUGHES 112(1) 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE VILLECCO, JOHN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Cho et al 12150197 - (D) TIMM 103 103 Cha & Reiter, LLC CHEN, XIAOLIANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Oberhomburg 10573433 - (D) WOOD 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION PASCHALL, MARK H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Pollentier et al 11039991 - (D) NEW 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP PURDY, KYLE A

1612 Ex Parte Kato et al 10506335 - (D) SCHEINER 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

1615 Ex Parte Breitenbach et al 10523908 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C AHMED, HASAN SYED

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Nashiki et al 11917110 - (D) KRATZ 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP MILLER, MICHAEL G

1729 Ex Parte Lai et al 11757843 - (D) SMITH 102 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1733 Ex Parte Aimone 11216498 - (D) WARREN 103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP KIECHLE, CAITLIN ANNE

1741 Ex Parte Nakamura et al 10506071 - (D) WARREN 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

1742 Ex Parte Russell et al 11643267 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION THROWER, LARRY W

1765 Ex Parte Facke et al 11219395 - (D) PAK 112(2)/102 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC SERGENT, RABON A

1786 Ex Parte Takashima et al 11932100 - (D) WARREN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CLARK, GREGORY D

1786 Ex Parte Schiffer et al 12233190 - (D) KIMLIN 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP CHOI, PETER Y

1791 Ex Parte Wittorff et al 12088982 - (D) PAK 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP DEES, NIKKI H

1793 Ex Parte Gutzmann et al 11779596 - (D) SMITH 103 Merchant & Gould Ecolab KING, FELICIA C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Ramesh et al 11600653 - (D) SMITH 103 TERADATA CORPORATION GIRMA, ANTENEH B

2163 Ex Parte Liebich et al 10975999 - (D) DANG 102 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP NGUYEN, KIM T

2171 Ex Parte Muller et al 11608326 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LEGGETT, ANDREA C.

2181 Ex Parte Gonzalez et al 11314844 - (D) DANG 103 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hung PA LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Hu et al 10544577 - (D) SMITH 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC LUONG, ALAN H

2431 Ex Parte Arisawa et al 11059413 - (D) DIXON 102/103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC SU, SARAH

2442 Ex Parte Fontes et al 10973121 - (D) SMITH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP RECEK, JASON D

2445 Ex Parte Redpath 10654214 - (D) DANG 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

2492 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 10658701 - (D) BUI 102/103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Jaakkola 11133657 - (D) DANG 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP GELIN, JEAN ALLAND

2647 Ex Parte Hwang et al 11598675 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. BILODEAU, DAVID

2694 Ex Parte Rosenberg et al 11499426 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP HORNER, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Maier 12029679 - (D) TIMM 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. AMRANY, ADI

2875 Ex Parte Kim et al 11782152 - (D) HOUSEL 102 Innovation Counsel LLP HAN, JASON

2886 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11702876 - (D) SMITH 102/103 SMYRSKI LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LEE, HWA S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Nesbitt 11151020 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Hasse & Nesbitt LLC CANFIELD, ROBERT

3654 Ex Parte Serkh 12072342 - (D) SPAHN 103 The Gates Corporation LIU, HENRY Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Burnstein 12254937 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

3714 Ex Parte Nonaka 10697237 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC MOSSER, ROBERT E

3746 Ex Parte Banister 10786718 - (D) MORRISON 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. FREAY, CHARLES GRANT

3788 Ex Parte Haggard et al 11868569 - (D) DANIELS 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Hahnle et al 10581459 - (D) WARREN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CORDRAY, DENNIS R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Pinto 11197697 - (R) JUNG 101/112(1)/112(2)/102 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz & Ottesen, LLP MICHENER, JOSHUA J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 SHANGHAI MEIHAO ELECTRIC INC. AND GENERAL PROTECHT GROUP INC. Requesters v. PASS & SEYMOUR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001224 95000477 7,283,340 11/469,604 WEINBERG 102 BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP; SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGUYEN, LINH M original BENENSON, BORIS

vitronics, best, crown operations, Jung, hyatt, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Davidai 11454720 - (D) GREEN 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION CHONG, YONG SOO

1648 Ex Parte Doranz et al 10901399 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Pepper/Integral Molecular, Inc. LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

1651 Ex Parte Morozov et al 11419593 - (D) FREDMAN 103 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DAVIS, RUTH A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Fryer et al 11441767 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. CHU, JOHN S Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Atkins 11536556 - (D) DILLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Barnett 11516600 - (D) FLOYD 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC) EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

3764 Ex Parte Grind 12317586 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Precor Incorporated Amer Sports North America THANH, LOAN H

3767 Ex Parte McFerran 10667056 - (D) GREEN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Chu 10933702 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) TABOR, AMARE F

2444 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11049808 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Norin et al 11593711 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SOROWAR, GOLAM

2677 Ex Parte Laksono 11285643 - (D) McKONE 103 103 VIXS Systems, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Xu 12039913 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP ENAD, CHRISTINE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Cieslik et al 11628727 - (D) SPAHN 103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WALBERG, TERESA J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Yadav et al 10898849 - (D) GARRIS 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1741 Ex Parte Pinkham et al 11805373 - (D) METZ 103 Johns Manville LAZORCIK, JASON L

1782 Ex Parte Lovett et al 10588710 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Monro 11255090 - (D) HUGHES 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. JACOB, AJITH

2171 Ex Parte Torres et al 11304947 - (D) DILLON 102/103 IBM END IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC NUNEZ, JORDANY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2446 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10818227 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2448 Ex Parte Gonen et al 10941790 - (D) BENOIT 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. BUI, JONATHAN A

2456 Ex Parte Mamas 10492095 - (D) BOUCHER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Although technical treatises and dictionaries fall within the category of extrinsic evidence, as they do not form a part of an integrated patent document, they are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such resources at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Holtschneider 10929829 - (D) WINSOR 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON CASCA, FRED A

2675 Ex Parte Walmsley et al 11176372 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Memjet c/o Cooley LLP HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Miyaji et al 11772537 - (D) COURTENAY 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KIM, JOHN K

The Examiner has the burden of providing reasonable proof that a claim limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (C.C.P.A. 1977); see also Crown Operations Int'l, LTD v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Examiner meets this "burden of production by `adequately explaining the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.'" In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Hyatt v. Dudas,492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant "to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." Best, 562 F.2d at 1254-55; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency).

In re MOUSA, 479 Fed. Appx. 348, 352 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (unpublished) 

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02, 2114

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

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

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte White 11213603 - (D) McCARTHY 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE DONDERO, WILLIAM E  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 NOVO NORDISK INC. AND NOVO NORDISK A/S, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1031 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Latham & Watkins LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

1614 NOVO NORDISK A/S AND NOVO NORDISK INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD. AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellees. 2011-1223 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Winston & Strawn LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

schreiber, K-2

custom search

AFFIRMED
3773 Ex Parte Bassoe 10884255 - (D) ADAMS 103 COOK GROUP PATENT OFFICE TYSON, MELANIE RUANO  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRM-IN-PART
2624 AMRO-ASIAN TRADE, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001419 7672499 10/163,757 TURNER 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP LAROSE, COLIN M original TRAN, PHUOC

In order to satisfy the functional limitations in an apparatus claim, the prior art apparatus must be capable of performing the claimed function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, functional and intended use language must be evaluated to the extent it conveys structural requirements. See, e.g., K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The functional language is, of course, an additional limitation in the claim”).

schreiber, altenpohl, fessmann, marosi, schumer

US 5,203,346

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte JEONG et al 12720430 - (D) JEFFERY 251/112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

These conversions from active steps to functional language effectively broaden the patented apparatus claims to merely require that the recited apparatus elements (e.g., “connection manager,” “classifier,” “service manager,” etc.) are capable of performing the intended function—not that they actually perform that function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the present reissue application is effectively a broadening reissue application.

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

In any event, corrections to claims via reissue to avoid potential indefiniteness have been judicially sanctioned, albeit in another context, to avoid having to rely on implication or litigation. See In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 1156-57 (CCPA 1974) (“Lack of antecedent basis in a claim could render it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and . . . a patentee should be allowed to correct an error or ambiguity in a claim without having to rely on implication or litigation.” (emphases added)).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Ng et al 11742563 - (D) CALVE 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCLAIN, GERALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Damera-Venkata 10698895 - (D) POTHIER 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ali et al 11437466 - (D) DIXON 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PHILLIPS, FORREST M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Pechtold et al 10843013 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 102/103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3777 Ex Parte BLUMHOFER et al 11548848 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP REMALY, MARK DONALD

3777 Ex Parte Benndorf et al 11724657 - (D) WALSH 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte DiLorenzo 11159842 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting NEUROVISTA / SHAY GLENN SIMS, JASON M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Bianchi 10806710 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103 HUGH P. GORTLER MERSHON, JAYNE L

1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11415044 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gonzalez 11064490 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Carlos Gonzalez TELAN, MICHAEL R

2461 Ex Parte Lauber 11757583 - (D) ZECHER 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. MIAN, OMER S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Dale et al 10340290 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DANNEMAN, PAUL

3656 Ex Parte Gaechter 10524298 - (D) GREENHUT 103 EGBERT LAW OFFICES PILKINGTON, JAMES

The USPTO bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)

3671 Ex Parte Suggate 10519546 - (D) CAPP 103 Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP HARTMANN, GARY S

3682 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11712276 - (D) KIM 102/103 YAHOO! OVERTURE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Morgenstern et al 10585162 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC PRAGER, JESSE M

3769 Ex Parte Odrich et al 10600027 - (D) PRATS 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

3788 Ex Parte Benson et al 11796384 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHU, KING M

3788 Ex Parte Busch et al 12092646 - (D) KAUFFMAN obviousness-type double patenting 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

The body of each claim describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).