custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Adams, Steven E. et al. 15380439 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 LAMBERT SHORTELL & CONNAUGHTON TADESSE, YEWEBDAR T
1726 KING ABDULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 14439655 - (D) CASHION 103 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC GOLDEN, ANDREW J
1792 Conagra Foods RDM, Inc. 14697138 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Advent, LLP LACHICA, ERICSON M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 QUALCOMM Incorporated 14716001 - (D) KUMAR 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED WU, STEPHANIE
2182 International Business Machines Corporation 14317413 - (D) BARRY 103 IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center LAROCQUE, EMILY E
2182 International Business Machines Corporation 14573273 - (D) BARRY 101/103 IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center LAROCQUE, EMILY E
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Dawson, Thomas et al. 15656495 - (D) DIRBA 102/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES HAIEM, SEAN N
2488 Baxter International Inc. et al. 14606582 - (D) BENNETT 102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago Baxter YOUNG, PATRICIA I
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Siva Sandeep. Dhandu et al. 15154894 - (D) BENNETT 102/103 VERIZON - AK VERIZON PATENTING GROUP BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 International Business Machines Corporation 14973928 - (D) RANGE 102 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - IBM FISHKILL HO, HOANG QUAN TRAN
2846 Yu Chen 13651994 - (D) TIMM 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP JOSEPH, DEVON A
2875 Hubbell Incorporated 14984827 - (D) McMANUS 102/103 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Hubbell) GUHARAY, KARABI
2883 Tyco Electronics Nederland BV 14584230 - (D) CURCURI 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. JORDAN, ANDREW
2893 Texas Instruments Incorporated 14671727 - (D) McMANUS 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED SEFER, AHMED N
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Mylan Inc. 13907028 - (D) SILVERMAN 101 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. COBANOGLU, DILEK B
3652 VanRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 14377696 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 41.50 112(1) Brannon Sowers & Cracraft PC MCCLAIN, GERALD
3669 Robert Bosch Automotive Steering GmbH 15313134 - (D) HILL 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) KERRIGAN, MICHAEL V
3682 Facebook, Inc. 14328509 - (D) DIXON 103 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Cameron International Corporation 15231945 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 OneSubsea IP UK COLON MORALES, DAVID
3763 Prim, Eric 13295601 - (D) BAHR 112(1) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. KING, BRIAN M
3774 Michael A. Rees 14215807 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/101/103 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP DIOP, ROKHAYA
3793 John Hauck 11647272 - (D) HILL 103 Wiley Patent Administration NGANGA, BONIFACE N
3794 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY 15535566 - (D) CALVE 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EKRAMI, YASAMIN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 LEICHTBAU-ZENTRUM SACHSEN GMBH 14362694 - (D) INGLESE 103 103 Abel Schillinger, LLP TUCKER, PHILIP C
1779 FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. 14958335 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 Kilyk & Bowersox, P.L.L.C. PEO, JONATHAN M
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Sony Corporation 15656691 - (D) DIRBA 103 102/103/OTDP ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES HAIEM, SEAN N
2426 Lam Hoang 15276585 - (D) HOMERE 102 102/103 Panasonic Avionics Corporation (Vista IP Law Group) ALATA, YASSIN
2433 ASSA ABLOY AB 14785653 - (D) COURTENAY 101/102 102 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/Assa-HID WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA
2439 Lovelace, Aaron F. et al. 14725593 - (D) RAEVSKY 103 103 SINORICA, LLC WANG, HARRIS C
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 HEXAGON TECHNOLOGY CENTER GMBH 15278009 - (D) McMANUS 103 112(2) Maschoff Brennan/Hexagon JORDAN, ANDREW
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Jeremy Hornik et al. 11379176 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP HENRY, THOMAS HAYNES
3726 ALSTOM Technology Ltd 15062301 - (D) PLENZLER 102 103 41.50 103 General Electric Company VAUGHAN, JASON L
3786 BONE FOAM, LLC 13766063 - (D) LORIN 103 112(2) Workman Nydegger HICKS, VICTORIA J
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 AL-MELH, MANAL MANSOUR ABU. 15680113 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Richard C. Litman Nath, Goldberg & Meyer COHEN, MICHAEL P
1612 SHARE-X CO., LTD. et al. 14912013 - (D) PRATS 103 Harness Dickey (St. Louis) YU, HONG
1627 Yoneoka, Takatomo 14342889 - (D) TOWNSEND 103/OTDP OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA
1628 Rios, Humberto Gonzalez. et al. 13446594 - (D) HARDMAN 103 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. LEE, ANDREW P
1639 BULK CHEMICAL SERVICES, LLC. 14755185 - (D) GRIMES 103 OTDP CLARK & BRODY HAVLIN, ROBERT H
1657 James Nial. Hynes et al. 14233602 - (D) JENKS 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. PATURY, SRIKANTH
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Beguinot, Jean et al. 10535174 - (D) SMITH Dissenting HANLON 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC YANG, JIE
1765 Brian B. Marr et al. 15018221 - (D) TIMM 112(2) Ashland LLC WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ. LENIHAN, JEFFREY S
1793 Sahagian, Michael 12294004 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Adam R. Stephenson, LTD. COX, AMBER M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. 14804654 - (D) SAADAT 101 MICRO FOCUS LLC EHNE, CHARLES
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Fox Sports Productions, Inc. 15068819 - (D) RAEVSKY 101 Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group MONTOYA, OSCHTA I
2422 Saturn Licensing LLC 15492362 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES LEE, MICHAEL
2448 D2L Corporation 14030189 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP SOWA, TIMOTHY JOHN
2453 Ludwig, Reiner et al. 14346766 - (D) SAADAT 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson HOUSTON, CLIFTON L
2457 Jonathan J. Lee et al. 13891983 - (D) BRANCH 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLE) PENA-SANTANA, TANIA M
2483 Jean-Francois Macq 13517326 - (D) BRANCH 103 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA VOLENTINE, REBECCA A
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 RippleNami Inc. 15256218 - (D) BENNETT 101/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) CHEN, FRANK S
2616 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 15156658 - (D) THOMAS 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. DEPT. AMD HOANG, PETER
2616 Ofstad, Andrew 13658794 - (D) CRAIG 112(2/103 Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Google) GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
2619 Norman Weyrich 14904065 - (D) CHUNG 103 Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman DOAN, PHUC N
2636 BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 14771998 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. LIU, LI
2674 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) 15118720 - (D) STRAUSS 101 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. PHAM, THIERRY L
2675 Kieran Hayes 14436045 - (D) JURGOVAN 101/103 Maschoff Brennan ZHU, RICHARD Z
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Micron Technology, Inc. 14743124 - (D) DENNETT 103 TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Hummel, Paul C. 12051196 - (D) CHEN 103 101 Boeing and Alston & Bird, LLP DICKERSON, TIPHANY B
3624 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 14105016 - (D) RAEVSKY 101 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN RINES, ROBERT D
3627 Neeran Karnik et al. 12977780 - (D) JEFFERY 103 101 41.50 101 Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP RACIC, MILENA
3629 International Business Machines Corporation 14816548 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/103 Terrile Cannatti & Chambers, LLP IBM - POU LINDSEY III, JOHNATHAN J
3649 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. 14754755 - (D) BROWN 103 McCarter & English LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
3687 Stephen Seawall 13792110 - (D) HOWARD 101 DEEPAK MALHOTRA MALHOTRA LAW FIRM, PLLC CHEIN, ALLEN C
3692 Airbnb, Inc. 13909626 - (D) SHIANG 101 AIRBNB/FENWICK MADAMBA, CLIFFORD B
3694 Adobe Systems Incorporated 14611830 - (D) BAYAT 101 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Inc.) ANDERSON, SCOTT C
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Richard Baskerville 14491930 - (D) OSINSKI 112(1)/102 112(2) 41.50 112(2) John Karl Buche Buche & Associates, P.C. LYNCH, MEGAN E
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Board erred in affirming an obviousness rejection of indefinite claims because the rejection was based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims) ...
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
We find the reasoning in In re Steele to be applicable to the written description rejection because reaching a decision as to whether the claims have adequate written description support requires that we first understand the metes and bounds of the claims. Cf. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) (One is not in a position to determine whether a claim is enabled under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 until the metes and bounds of that claim are determined under the second paragraph of this section of the statute.).
Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) 1504.04 , 2161.01 , 2164.08 , 2172
3735 KRAFT FOODS R&D, INC. 14903480 - (D) KERINS 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP PAGAN, JAVIER A
3761 Crain Cutter Company, Inc. 14742642 - (D) GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2) FENWICK & WEST LLP FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T
3774 Graham, Michael 15015746 - (D) FINAMORE 103 Houtteman Law LLC PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D
3775 Urs Hulliger 13426079 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COLEY, ZADE JAMES
3783 Moonen, Chretien et al. 12438934 - (D) WIEDER 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LEE, WENG WAH
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Showing posts with label steele. Show all posts
Showing posts with label steele. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Monday, March 28, 2016
steele
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Torell 13015627 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 41.50 112(2) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
Having determined that claims 1–9 are indefinite, we cannot sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because to do so would require speculative assumptions as to the meaning and scope of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Board erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 MICROSTRATEGY INC. Requester v. VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6877006 et al 95000698 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original FLEURANTIN, JEAN B
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 KHS USA, INC. Requester v. STEUBEN FOODS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,945,013 et al 09/871,078 95001452 - (D) MOORE 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: GIBBONS P.C. DAWSON, GLENN K original TAWFIK, SAMEH
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Torell 13015627 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 41.50 112(2) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
Having determined that claims 1–9 are indefinite, we cannot sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because to do so would require speculative assumptions as to the meaning and scope of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Board erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 MICROSTRATEGY INC. Requester v. VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6877006 et al 95000698 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original FLEURANTIN, JEAN B
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 KHS USA, INC. Requester v. STEUBEN FOODS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,945,013 et al 09/871,078 95001452 - (D) MOORE 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: GIBBONS P.C. DAWSON, GLENN K original TAWFIK, SAMEH
Monday, March 16, 2015
steele
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Schelhaas et al 12072343 - (D) BROWNE 103 THE GATES CORPORATION REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Hirano et al 10430594 - (D) WILSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting ChevronTexaco Corporation MCAVOY, ELLEN M
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Batni et al 11485890 - (D) FRAHM 103 102/103 Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC DONAGHUE, LARRY D
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Weber et al 12191463 - (D) WOODS 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/102/103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ROGERS, LAKIYA G
For the reasons expressed below in the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, these claims are indefinite. Therefore, the prior art rejections of these claims are based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
3753 Ex Parte Steinfels et al 12183811 - (D) BAER 103 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Stanley B&D) FOX, JOHN C
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Tirault et al 11320735 - (D) KAMHOLTZ 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CLAYTOR, DEIRDRE RENEE
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Schneider 10574721 - (D) McKELVEY 102 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC LEE, DORIS L
REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Schelhaas et al 12072343 - (D) BROWNE 103 THE GATES CORPORATION REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Hirano et al 10430594 - (D) WILSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting ChevronTexaco Corporation MCAVOY, ELLEN M
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Batni et al 11485890 - (D) FRAHM 103 102/103 Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC DONAGHUE, LARRY D
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Weber et al 12191463 - (D) WOODS 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/102/103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ROGERS, LAKIYA G
For the reasons expressed below in the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, these claims are indefinite. Therefore, the prior art rejections of these claims are based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
3753 Ex Parte Steinfels et al 12183811 - (D) BAER 103 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Stanley B&D) FOX, JOHN C
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Tirault et al 11320735 - (D) KAMHOLTZ 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CLAYTOR, DEIRDRE RENEE
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Schneider 10574721 - (D) McKELVEY 102 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC LEE, DORIS L
Monday, April 21, 2014
steele
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Whitney et al 11595506 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Wells St. John P.S.. AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Vest et al 12367650 - (D) PAK 103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Vanderwees 11748597 - (D) HOELTER 103 Marshall & Melhorn, LLC DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lipton et al 11953789 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC DOAK, JENNIFER L
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Jitaru et al 11677785 - (D) DELMENDO 103 AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN MEHARI, YEMANE
2883 Ex Parte Smith et al 12827423 - (D) HASTINGS 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC LEPISTO, RYAN A
2884 Ex Parte Betancourt et al 11388274 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH LEE, SHUN K
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Whitney et al 11595506 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Wells St. John P.S.. AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Vest et al 12367650 - (D) PAK 103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Vanderwees 11748597 - (D) HOELTER 103 Marshall & Melhorn, LLC DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lipton et al 11953789 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC DOAK, JENNIFER L
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Jitaru et al 11677785 - (D) DELMENDO 103 AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN MEHARI, YEMANE
2883 Ex Parte Smith et al 12827423 - (D) HASTINGS 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC LEPISTO, RYAN A
2884 Ex Parte Betancourt et al 11388274 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH LEE, SHUN K
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
steele, gorman, process control, raytheon
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Alvarez et al 11702120 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP YAGER, JAMES C
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Xue et al 10910371 - (D) FISHMAN 101/112(1)/102/103 Duane Morris LLP (UDC) DICKEY, THOMAS L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Morikaku et al 11226278 - (D) CALVE 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC ANGWIN, DAVID PATRICK
3744 Ex Parte Meerpohl et al 10584164 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the examiner and the board erred in relying on what were at best speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims and basing a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 thereon.)
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Shekleton et al 11696752 - (D) KERINS 103 103 DEERE & COMPANY TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Hunt 11499432 - (D) GRIMES 103 Allergan, Inc. FORD, VANESSA L
See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (test of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.”).
Gorman, In re, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 707.07(f) , 2145
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Abd Elhamid et al 11464844 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
1776 Ex Parte Alpert 11683812 - (D) GARRIS 101/112(1)/112(2)/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. THERKORN, ERNEST G
Under the circumstances of this appeal, the issues presented by the § 112, 1st paragraph, rejection correspond to those presented by the § 101 rejection. See Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[A] claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under §112[, and], when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either §101 or §112 of 35 U.S.C.” quoting Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 52 USPQ2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 706.03(d) , 2173.05(a)
DONNER 6: 217, 219, 224-26; 9: 80, 89-91
HARMON 2: 101, 123; 5: 10, 72, 76; 6: 384; 20: 176, 183
Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2107.02 , 2164.08
DONNER 6: 91, 97, 99, 109-11, 215, 218, 221-23; 9: 79, 82, 88; 10: 43; 11: 137
HARMON 1: 66, 208; 2: 100, 102, 104, 106, 110, 126; 5: 9, 29, 70; 6: 127, 304, 358; 20: 183, 194
1791 Ex Parte Richards et al 10971317 - (D) OWENS concurring NAGUMO 102/103 WARF/MAD/QUARLES & BRADY LLP BADR, HAMID R
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Muller et al 11040395 - (D) HUME 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LE, THU NGUYET T
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Giannetti et al 10650638 - (D) ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
2492 Ex Parte Breiter et al 12171744 - (D) POTHIER 103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. NAJJAR, SALEH
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Lee et al 11486204 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Topolinski 12359600 - (D) PLENZLER 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP PRONE, JASON D
3754 Ex Parte Mehus et al 10436454 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. JACYNA, J CASIMER
3766 Ex Parte Stancer et al 11669519 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M
VACATED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte TORRENS et al 11457720 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HAVLIN, ROBERT H
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 FEI COMPANY Requester v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Patent Owner 95001313 7262411 11/295,148 SIU 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 112(2) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN Third Party Reqeuster: Michael O. Scheinberg MENEFEE, JAMES A original NGUYEN, KIET TUAN
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Alvarez et al 11702120 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP YAGER, JAMES C
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Xue et al 10910371 - (D) FISHMAN 101/112(1)/102/103 Duane Morris LLP (UDC) DICKEY, THOMAS L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Morikaku et al 11226278 - (D) CALVE 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC ANGWIN, DAVID PATRICK
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the examiner and the board erred in relying on what were at best speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims and basing a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 thereon.)
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Shekleton et al 11696752 - (D) KERINS 103 103 DEERE & COMPANY TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Hunt 11499432 - (D) GRIMES 103 Allergan, Inc. FORD, VANESSA L
See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (test of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.”).
Gorman, In re, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 707.07(f) , 2145
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Abd Elhamid et al 11464844 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
1776 Ex Parte Alpert 11683812 - (D) GARRIS 101/112(1)/112(2)/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. THERKORN, ERNEST G
Under the circumstances of this appeal, the issues presented by the § 112, 1st paragraph, rejection correspond to those presented by the § 101 rejection. See Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[A] claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under §112[, and], when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either §101 or §112 of 35 U.S.C.” quoting Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 52 USPQ2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 706.03(d) , 2173.05(a)
DONNER 6: 217, 219, 224-26; 9: 80, 89-91
HARMON 2: 101, 123; 5: 10, 72, 76; 6: 384; 20: 176, 183
Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2107.02 , 2164.08
DONNER 6: 91, 97, 99, 109-11, 215, 218, 221-23; 9: 79, 82, 88; 10: 43; 11: 137
HARMON 1: 66, 208; 2: 100, 102, 104, 106, 110, 126; 5: 9, 29, 70; 6: 127, 304, 358; 20: 183, 194
1791 Ex Parte Richards et al 10971317 - (D) OWENS concurring NAGUMO 102/103 WARF/MAD/QUARLES & BRADY LLP BADR, HAMID R
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Muller et al 11040395 - (D) HUME 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LE, THU NGUYET T
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Giannetti et al 10650638 - (D) ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
2492 Ex Parte Breiter et al 12171744 - (D) POTHIER 103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. NAJJAR, SALEH
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Lee et al 11486204 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Topolinski 12359600 - (D) PLENZLER 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP PRONE, JASON D
3754 Ex Parte Mehus et al 10436454 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. JACYNA, J CASIMER
3766 Ex Parte Stancer et al 11669519 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M
VACATED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte TORRENS et al 11457720 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HAVLIN, ROBERT H
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 FEI COMPANY Requester v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Patent Owner 95001313 7262411 11/295,148 SIU 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 112(2) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN Third Party Reqeuster: Michael O. Scheinberg MENEFEE, JAMES A original NGUYEN, KIET TUAN
Saturday, March 3, 2012
steele, wilson
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 11/007,247 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER
HICKS, MICHAEL J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brimdyr 10/924,504 CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) OCCHIUTI ROHLICEK & TSAO, LLP EXAMINER BURGESS, JOSEPH D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Wilkowske et al 11/033,098 GRIMES 103(a) SJM/AFD-WILEY EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A
3767 Ex Parte Albert et al 11/161,549 SAINDON 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER BOSWORTH, KAMI A
3767 Ex Parte Lilley et al 11/161,543 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Goettsch 12/134,270 HOUSEL 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Adelman et al 11/946,701 KIM 112(2)/101/103(a)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER FISHER, PAUL R
Before a proper review of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103(a) can be performed, the subject matter encompassed by the claims on appeal must be reasonably understood without resort to speculation. Since the claims fail to satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we are constrained to reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103(a). See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite.”)
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
AFFIRMED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Thomason et al 10/507,772 LORIN 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 11/007,247 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER
HICKS, MICHAEL J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brimdyr 10/924,504 CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) OCCHIUTI ROHLICEK & TSAO, LLP EXAMINER BURGESS, JOSEPH D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Wilkowske et al 11/033,098 GRIMES 103(a) SJM/AFD-WILEY EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A
3767 Ex Parte Albert et al 11/161,549 SAINDON 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER BOSWORTH, KAMI A
3767 Ex Parte Lilley et al 11/161,543 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Goettsch 12/134,270 HOUSEL 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Adelman et al 11/946,701 KIM 112(2)/101/103(a)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER FISHER, PAUL R
Before a proper review of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103(a) can be performed, the subject matter encompassed by the claims on appeal must be reasonably understood without resort to speculation. Since the claims fail to satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we are constrained to reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103(a). See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite.”)
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
AFFIRMED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Thomason et al 10/507,772 LORIN 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S
Friday, July 1, 2011
steele, boon, klosak, skoner
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kang et al 11/410,757 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
1782 Ex Parte Jester et al 10/404,787 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 11/128,543 DILLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W
2186 Ex Parte Ruckerbauer et al 11/011,466 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Gero McClellan / Qimonda EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Colasurdo et al 10/166,299 STEPHENS 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK
A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862-863 (CCPA 1962).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
2452 Ex Parte Malik 10/165,831 STEPHENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER DOAN, DUYEN MY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte SHIMOE et al 11/457,356 COCKS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
3763 Ex Parte Diemunsch 11/038,359 KERINS Dissenting STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10/801,793 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 PlaSmart, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owners and Appellants 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 103(a) MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a) THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Eun et al 10/946,326 HANLON 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
1746 Ex Parte Stadele 10/805,337 GUEST 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J
1775 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/458,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E
1785 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/297,792 GUEST 103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 09/883,817 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H
2168 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 11/362,488 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A
2179 Ex Parte Iwema et al 10/144,256 DANG 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
Our reviewing court has held that an adequate traverse to such a finding of official notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances
justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” MPEP § 2144.03(C). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, . . . the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art . . . .” Id.
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Birks et al 10/386,152 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Spector 10/949,987 HAHN 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U
2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 09/932,842 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) Frank C. Nicholas Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY
2628 Ex Parte Billingsley et al 10/863,609 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hengsbach 10/454,333 OWENS 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 103(a) AUTOLIV ASP, INC Attn: Sally J. Brown ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
It is well settled that Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps et al 10/340,315 BARRETT 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Cronley
Ex Parte Dimitrova et al
Ex Parte Ferderer
Ex Parte Geerits et al
Ex Parte Grove et al
Ex Parte Luo
Ex Parte Mezo et al
Ex Parte Virji et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Hahnle et al
Ex Parte Kulkarni
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Dooley et al
Ex Parte Fritz et al
Ex Parte Futamura et al
Ex Parte Gabrius et al
Ex Parte Goebel et al
Ex Parte Hagiya et al
Ex Parte King et al
Ex Parte Kok et al
Ex Parte Lais et al
Ex Parte Lloyd
Ex Parte Mandel et al
Ex Parte Postupack et al
Ex Parte Rauma et al
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kang et al 11/410,757 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
1782 Ex Parte Jester et al 10/404,787 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 11/128,543 DILLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W
2186 Ex Parte Ruckerbauer et al 11/011,466 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Gero McClellan / Qimonda EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Colasurdo et al 10/166,299 STEPHENS 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK
A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862-863 (CCPA 1962).
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
2452 Ex Parte Malik 10/165,831 STEPHENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER DOAN, DUYEN MY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte SHIMOE et al 11/457,356 COCKS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
3763 Ex Parte Diemunsch 11/038,359 KERINS Dissenting STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10/801,793 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 PlaSmart, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owners and Appellants 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 103(a) MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a) THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Eun et al 10/946,326 HANLON 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
1746 Ex Parte Stadele 10/805,337 GUEST 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J
1775 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/458,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E
1785 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/297,792 GUEST 103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 09/883,817 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H
2168 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 11/362,488 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A
2179 Ex Parte Iwema et al 10/144,256 DANG 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
Our reviewing court has held that an adequate traverse to such a finding of official notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances
justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” MPEP § 2144.03(C). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, . . . the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art . . . .” Id.
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Birks et al 10/386,152 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Spector 10/949,987 HAHN 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U
2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 09/932,842 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) Frank C. Nicholas Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY
2628 Ex Parte Billingsley et al 10/863,609 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hengsbach 10/454,333 OWENS 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 103(a) AUTOLIV ASP, INC Attn: Sally J. Brown ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
It is well settled that Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps et al 10/340,315 BARRETT 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Cronley
Ex Parte Dimitrova et al
Ex Parte Ferderer
Ex Parte Geerits et al
Ex Parte Grove et al
Ex Parte Luo
Ex Parte Mezo et al
Ex Parte Virji et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Hahnle et al
Ex Parte Kulkarni
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Dooley et al
Ex Parte Fritz et al
Ex Parte Futamura et al
Ex Parte Gabrius et al
Ex Parte Goebel et al
Ex Parte Hagiya et al
Ex Parte King et al
Ex Parte Kok et al
Ex Parte Lais et al
Ex Parte Lloyd
Ex Parte Mandel et al
Ex Parte Postupack et al
Ex Parte Rauma et al
Friday, June 17, 2011
porter2, kuehl, blattner, pfizer, steele, kropa
REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Burkart et al 11/401,558 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(4) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four, requires that a dependent claim specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 6 recites in its entirety, “An electric belt retractor with a control arrangement to carry out the method of claim 1.” Reciting that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is “to carry out” a particular method does not further limit that method. Intent relates to a state of mind and there is nothing in claim 6 actually requiring performance of the steps recited in claim 1. See, e.g., In re Hansen, 99 USPQ 319, 321 (BPAI 1953); compare In re Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992) (citing In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658 (CCPA 1973) and In re Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)); See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claims 7-13 depend from claim 6. Only claim 6 contains a reference to claim 1. Accordingly, we find claims 6-13 fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We recognize that the Appellants could have drafted claims 6-13 as properly depending from claim 1 or could have written claim 6 in independent form. However, we decline to speculate about what the Appellants intend to claim and reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 without opinion on the merits thereof. See id.; see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).
Kuehl, In re, 425 F.2d 658, 177 USPQ 250 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.01
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)
Blattner, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.09
3673 Ex Parte Kavounas 11/248,929 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rice 11/003,199 KAUFFMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER BRINSON, PATRICK F
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Tsang et al 11/169,095 HOMERE 101/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING
2186 Ex Parte Rau 11/021,707 DANG 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
REHEARING
GRANTED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 FRAHM 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A
NEW
REVERSED
1729 Ex Parte Drake et al 10/664,822 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2165 Ex Parte Buros et al 11/268,931 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER HOANG, SON T
AFFIRMED
2815 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/230,772 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER CLARK, JASMINE JHIHAN B
2448 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,653 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N
2425 Ex Parte Kelly 10/515,696 FRAHM 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V
2453 Ex Parte Shalabi et al 10/984,090 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
2166 Ex Parte Stecker 10/918,520 MORGAN 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
1761 Ex Parte Trinh 11/059,078 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Burkart et al 11/401,558 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(4) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four, requires that a dependent claim specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 6 recites in its entirety, “An electric belt retractor with a control arrangement to carry out the method of claim 1.” Reciting that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is “to carry out” a particular method does not further limit that method. Intent relates to a state of mind and there is nothing in claim 6 actually requiring performance of the steps recited in claim 1. See, e.g., In re Hansen, 99 USPQ 319, 321 (BPAI 1953); compare In re Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992) (citing In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658 (CCPA 1973) and In re Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)); See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claims 7-13 depend from claim 6. Only claim 6 contains a reference to claim 1. Accordingly, we find claims 6-13 fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We recognize that the Appellants could have drafted claims 6-13 as properly depending from claim 1 or could have written claim 6 in independent form. However, we decline to speculate about what the Appellants intend to claim and reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 without opinion on the merits thereof. See id.; see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).
Kuehl, In re, 425 F.2d 658, 177 USPQ 250 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.01
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)
Blattner, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.09
3673 Ex Parte Kavounas 11/248,929 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rice 11/003,199 KAUFFMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER BRINSON, PATRICK F
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Tsang et al 11/169,095 HOMERE 101/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING
2186 Ex Parte Rau 11/021,707 DANG 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
REHEARING
GRANTED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 FRAHM 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A
NEW
REVERSED
1729 Ex Parte Drake et al 10/664,822 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2165 Ex Parte Buros et al 11/268,931 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER HOANG, SON T
AFFIRMED
2815 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/230,772 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER CLARK, JASMINE JHIHAN B
2448 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,653 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N
2425 Ex Parte Kelly 10/515,696 FRAHM 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V
2453 Ex Parte Shalabi et al 10/984,090 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
2166 Ex Parte Stecker 10/918,520 MORGAN 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
1761 Ex Parte Trinh 11/059,078 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)