SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label stencel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stencel. Show all posts

Friday, July 15, 2016

stencel, C.R. Bard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Muller et al 12373649 - (D) RANGE 103 41.50 102/103 Evoqua Water Technologies LLC ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Whether or not a statement of "intended purpose constitutes a limitation to the claims is, as has been long established, a matter to be determined on the facts of each case in view of the claimed invention as a whole." In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754-55 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that preamble did not limit claim scope where it merely stated intended use or purpose of the invention).

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) 2111.02

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2694 Ex Parte HOTELLING et al 12549229 - (D) WINSOR 103 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA HORNER, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Fashchik et al 12164446 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/112(2)/102/103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINAE

3646 Ex Parte Sejvar 12715420 - (D) CALVE 102/103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC BURKE, SEAN P

3651 Ex Parte Wunsch 12742860 - (D) CALVE 102/103 LAITRAM, L.L. C. SINGH, KAVEL
REVERSED 3742 Ex Parte Chen et al 11475750 - (D) BROWNE 103 Charles E Leahy JENNISON, BRIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte King et al 12200513 - (D) MORGAN 102 102 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C. Oracle International Corporation BULLOCK, JOSHUA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Cote 12834350 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Fromovich et al 13566893 - (D) SHAH 103 112(2) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP MAI, HAO D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Ziser et al 11301704 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 LANXESS CORPORATION MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Garza et al 13275638 - (D) KUMAR 103 Greg Goshorn, P,C, MUNDUR, PADMAVATHI V

2445 Ex Parte Adams et al 11457303 - (D) McNEILL 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP JAKOVAC, RYAN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Navarro 13374971 - (D) HOSKINS 103 Gary Honeycutt CUOMO, PETER M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Perschbacher et al 12277101 - (D) BROWNE 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 CERRO WIRE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7411129 et al 10/952,294 95000403 - (D) CHEN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DLA PIPER US LLP NGUYEN, TUAN H original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

Friday, December 16, 2011

boehringer, stencel

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Pilgaard et al 10/490,278 McCOLLUM 103(a) COLOPLAST A/S EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Trossman et al 10/947,768 DILLON 103(a)/101 LEE LAW, PLLC IBM CUSTOMER NUMBER EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2448 Ex Parte Brownholtz et al 10/894,526 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

2478 Ex Parte Barda 10/836,520 CHEN 102(b) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER ALI, FARHAD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Coss et al 10/094,550 KRIVAK 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/794,334 WALSH
103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER WHALEY, PABLO S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Asaro et al 10/074,064 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) VEDDER PRICE P.C. EXAMINER MYERS, PAUL R

2185 Ex Parte Challener et al 11/068,322 DESHPANDE
112(2)/103(a) 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/457,908 FRAHM
103(a) 101 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. BOX IBM EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Balzer et al 11/480,618 BAHR
103(a) 103(a) MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC AND FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Weers et al 10/751,342 WALSH 103(a)/
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NOVARTIS EXAMINER CARTER, KENDRA D

1644 Ex Parte Peritt et al 11/018,240 McCOLLUM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SKELDING, ZACHARY S

1645 Ex Parte Chu 11/325,556 FRANKLIN 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER GANGLE, BRIAN J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Breese 10/774,161 GARRIS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Raith et al 11/098,292 DESHPANDE 102(b)/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D

2172 Ex Parte Schmitt 10/854,170 COURTENAY 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D

Appellant’s argued limitation of “performing a query on a database for determining names of one or more predefined parameter sets for the customization object” (claim 1) does not positively recite that any parameter set names are actually determined. Our reviewing court guides that “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Willins et al 11/137,003 HAHN 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER LAI, DANIEL

2618 Ex Parte Perlman 10/395,749 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. BEREZNAK EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Hirotsu 10/719,321 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

3788 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11/132,964 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE WEINTRAUB GROUP, P.L.C. EXAMINER PICKETT, JOHN G

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B


2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...

See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01

3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R


[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.


Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163