custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Friesen et al 12312826 - (D) COTTA 103/OTDP KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP MILLIGAN, ADAM C
1631 Ex Parte McLaughlin et al 12985237 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP MORAN, MARJORIE A
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte CUI et al 14477389 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC GAMINO, CARLOS J
1737 Ex Parte Kurz et al 13940315 - (D) WILSON 112(2)/102/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC CHACKO DA VIS, DABORAH
1789 Ex Parte Seidler et al 13057005 - (D) TIMM 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. PIZIALI, ANDREW T
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 13424246 - (D) MOORE 103 LAW OFFICE OF MARCIAL. DOUBET, P. L. MRABI, HASSAN
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Wood 14827953 - (D) CYGAN 103 Apple Inc. -- FKM KABIR, JAHANGIR
2452 Ex Parte Peterson et al 13054805 - (D) SAADAT 103 HP Inc. WIDHALM DE RODRIG, ANGELA MARIE
see also Texas Instruments Inc. v. US. Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Autogiro Co. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 396 (1967)) ("Courts can neither broaden nor narrow claims to give the patentee something different than what he has set forth.").
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
2466 Ex Parte Kashima 12141321 - (D) CURCURI 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. PHAM, TITO Q
2486 Ex Parte Morioka 13503763 - (D) PYONIN 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
2491 Ex Parte Pickering et al 14378962 - (D) HAMANN 102/103 Rimon, P.C. FAROOQUI, QUAZI
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Kravitz et al 14557476 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 D. KUGLER I.P. SERVICES LTD. WANG, XI
2674 Ex Parte Yamine 13980216 - (D) MOORE Concurring ENGLE 103 Sage Patent Group/Zacco DEMETER, HILINA K
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Bibl et al 14312554 - (D) DENNETT 103 APPLE-J /Jaffery Watson Mendonsa & Hamilton NADAV,ORI
2815 Ex Parte Gefen et al 12907607 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP LE, LONG HUYNH
2868 Ex Parte Hoenicka et al 13463335 - (D) SMITH 102 ALSTON & BIRD LLP PATEL, PARESH H
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Desset-Brethes et al 14399991 - (D) BROWN 103 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION OJOFEITIMI, A YODEJI T
3665 Ex Parte Ohba 14631427 - (D) STEPINA 101 Muramatsu & Associates KIM, KYUNG J
3668 Ex Parte Meyer et al 14894580 - (D) MARSCHALL 102 Ann Critchell-Ward LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
3692 Ex Parte Studnitzer et al 14074670 - (D) BENNETT 101 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME GAW, MARK H
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Deane et al 10822426 - (D) ASTORINO 101 Jones Day GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
3731 Ex Parte Binder et al 13916184 - (D) BAHR 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC HIBBERT, MARY C
3731 Ex Parte Whitmer et al 14174432 - (D) STEPINA 103 THOMPSON COBURN LLP SEIF, DARIUSH
3731 Ex Parte Zumbiel 14068405 - (D) HOELTER 103 WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP TAWFIK, SAMEH
3745 Ex Parte Hull 13922640 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP WIBLIN, MATTHEW
3746 Ex Parte Date et al 14233323 - (D) BAHR 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW
3754 Ex Parte ARMSTRONG et al 13562546 - (D) PESLAK 103 POLSINELLI PC GRUBY, RANDALL A
3761 Ex Parte Jeanneteau et al 12994700 - (D) STEPINA 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP CALVETTI, FREDERICK F
3772 Ex Parte Luoto 13375658 - (D) BROWN 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP LEWIS, RALPH A
3793 Ex Parte Parthasarathy et al 14113035 - (D) CHANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BRUTUS, JOEL F
3793 Ex Parte Hendriks et al 14406534 - (D) STEPINA 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ROZANSKI, MICHAEL T
3793 Ex Parte Groth et al 14380982 - (D) GUIJT 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LUONG, PETER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 13462740 - (D) MOORE 103 OTDP LAW OFFICE OF MARCIAL. DOUBET, P. L. MRABI, HASSAN
2196 Ex Parte HORLEY et al 13968991 - (D) MOORE 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. AGUILERA, TODD
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Pinheiro et al 14156412 - (D) MacDONALD 102 102 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) NGUYEN, PHUOC H
2495 Ex Parte Madathilparambil George et al 12151853 - (D) MOORE 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(1) GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE DEBNATH, SUMAN
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Doll et al 14459684 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 FENWICK & WEST LLP HE, WEIMING
2696 Ex Parte CANDELA et al 14176758 - (D) BARRY 103 103 Law Office of Jim Boice COHEN, YARON
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Krouse 14092644 - (D) BROWN 103 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP NGUYEN, SON T
3647 Ex Parte Koppelman et al 14307160 - (D) FITZPATRICK 112(1)/102/103 OTDP Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company BURGESS, MARC R
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Donnelly et al 14646793 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 Dow DuPont c/o E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company PHAN, DOANTHI-THUC
1613 Ex Parte Perry 14247303 - (D) TOWNSEND 102/103 Johnson & Martin, P.A. BASQUILL, SEAN M
1643 Ex Parte Srivastava et al 14287599 - (D) SCHNEIDER 112(1)/103 MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP (with HJF) NATARAJAN, MEERA
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Wakisaka et al 13915811 - (D) OBERMANN 112(2)/102/103 103 RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP GAMINO, CARLOS J
1744 Ex Parte Houbertz et al 13696966 - (D) KENNEDY dissenting NAGUMO 112(2)/103 DUANE MORRIS LLP- Philadelphia SHAFI, LEITH S
1746 Ex Parte Matsen et al 13937253 - (D) OBERMANN 103 YEE & ASSOCIA TES, P.C. MCNALLY, DANIEL
1795 Ex Parte Murakami et al 13520594 - (D) OWENS 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP WONG, EDNA
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Remme et al 11556842 - (D) BAUMEISTER 101/103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE
2159 Ex Parte Homsany 13723734 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Dropbox c/o Polsinelli PC JACOBS, EDWARD
2165 Ex Parte Tiu et al 14179382 - (D) MOORE 103/OTDP Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. ABRAHAM, AHMED M
2178 Ex Parte Cho et al 13711583 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Inkling Systems, Inc. c/o Ascenda Law Group, PC SHEFFIELD, HOPE CORNELL
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Sievert et al 12494539 - (D) STEPHENS 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC FOGG, CYNTHIA M
2431 Ex Parte Sickendick et al 14634032 - (D) BISK 112(1) 103 Department of the Air Force CATTUNGAL, DEREENA T
2457 Ex Parte Orhomuru 09862789 - (D) DIXON 102 MICHAEL J. BOOTCHECK, LLC DALENCOURT, YVES
2462 Ex Parte Chen et al 13593181 - (D) FRAHM 103 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. MILLS, DONALD L
2481 Ex Parte YAMADA et al 13084883 - (D) HUGHES 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BENNETT, STUART D
2485 Ex Parte SAEKI et al 14091915 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. SUN, YULIN
2492 Ex Parte Dobyns et al 12189055 - (D) BENNETT 112(1) 112(2)/103 THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. P DAVIS, ZACHARY A
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte CHOQUETTE et al 13335872 - (D) HUGHES 103/OTDP WPAT, PC ELAHI, TOWFIQ
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Guieze et al 13806140 - (D) WILSON 102 Schlumberger SRPC FRANK, RODNEY T
2857 Ex Parte Yin et al 13144379 - (D) SQUIRE 101/103 KUAN, JOHN CHUNY ANG KUAN, JOHN CHUNY ANG
2865 Ex Parte Fung et al 14318404 - (D) SNAY 101 Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC HENSON, MISCHITA L
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Fannin et al 14027626 - (D) DEJMEK 103 101 LEE & HAYES, P.C. MISIASZEK, MICHAEL
3626 Ex Parte DOUGLASS et al 14454312 - (D) MOHANTY 101 Medley, Behrens & Lewis, LLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D
3626 Ex Parte Croan 12038650 - (D) WIEDER 101/103 Vobach IP Law, LLC GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L
3628 Ex Parte Brereton et al 15018274 - (D) SAADAT 101 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. NELSON, FREDA ANN
3642 Ex Parte Stern 14163088 - (D) PESLAK 103 M&G Spectrum HUSON, JOSHUA DANIEL
3649 Ex Parte Schneider et al 13872636 - (D) CALVE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L MCCULLOUGH, MICHAEL C
3657 Ex Parte Johnson et al 13298625 - (D) OSINSKI 112(1)/112(2)/102 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA KING, BRADLEY T
3665 Ex Parte LOPEZ et al 14255665 - (D) STEPINA 112(1)/102/103 112(2) Arent Fox LLP WHALEN, MICHAEL F
3681 Ex Parte Gupta et al 13074096 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 101/103 EGL/Excalibur NGUYEN, THUY N
3683 Ex Parte Baldwin et al 13781408 - (D) FETTING 101 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Linkedln/Microsoft SINGH, GURKANW ALJIT
3687 Ex Parte GOLDBERG et al 14486351 - (D) MOHANTY 101/103 MASTERCARD C/0 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC LUDWIG, PETER L
3693 Ex Parte Faith et al 12581753 - (D) CRAIG 103 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA CHAKRAVARTI, ARUNAVA
3694 Ex Parte Browne et al 13873099 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 101 MatterLight IP SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z
3696 Ex Parte McWhinney et al 13462999 - (D) FETTING 101 Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC NGUYEN, LIZ P
3697 Ex Parte Slutsker et al 13140248 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 112(1)/112(2)/101 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Amaitis et al 13617299 - (D) ASTORINO 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. DEODHAR, OMKAR A
3723 Ex Parte King et al 13888658 - (D) WARNER 103 Seyfarth Shaw LLP SHAKERI, HADI
3741 Ex Parte Adams et al 15292438 - (D) HOELTER 112(1) 112(1)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY NGUYEN, ANDREW H
3771 Ex Parte Mohl 13925107 - (D) STEPINA 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) COLELLO, ERIN L
3771 Ex Parte Mohl 13549585 - (D) STEPINA 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) COLELLO, ERIN L
3771 Ex Parte Brett et al 12637948 - (D) HORNER 103 CHOATE, HALL & STEWARTLLP DANG, PHONG SON H
3771 Ex Parte Gross et al 13429150 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Ethicon LLC c/o Frost Brown Todd LLC HOUSTON, ELIZABETH
3793 Ex Parte Dycus et al 14719584 - (D) BAHR 103 41.50 103 Covidien LP BEHRINGER, LUTHER G
3793 Ex Parte Pelissier et al 13565696 - (D) KATZ 103 DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., LP.A. TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
3794 Ex Parte Thompson et al 14258373 - (D) BROWN 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (32736) FOWLER, DANIEL WAYNE
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Showing posts with label texas instruments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label texas instruments. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2019
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
texas instruments, boehringer
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Keller et al 12911117 - (D) GARRIS 102/double patenting NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY YANG, JIE
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Rodgers et al 11743533 - (D) KAISER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HERZOG, MADHURI R
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11671264 - (D) KHAN 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP TRAN, MONG-THUY THI
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte KAWAKAMI 12233754 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/102/103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP YABUT, DANIEL D
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schaeffer et al 11810533 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago MATHEW, SEEMA
3763 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11485619 - (D) MILLS 102/103 IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte van Os et al 12364470 - (D) SHAW 103 103 Apple c/o Morrison & Foerster LLP SF TILLERY, RASHAWN N
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Zufall et al 11797048 - (D) DANG 103 103 Dorsey & Whitney LLP d/b/a DBSD Satellite Services G.P. DISH Network L.L.C. TRAN, PAUL P
Given the language used, the "such that" clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the resulting condition (enabling the mobile units/device to perform an intended function of combining with multicast content) that occurs when the multicast data is transmitted, as positively recited in claims 44 and 69. Thus, the "such that" clause at issue is akin to a "whereby" clause that merely states the result of transmitting the multicast data. Our reviewing court has conluded that "[a] 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation ommitted). Further, our reviewing court guides: "[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). Thus, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, we find the claims merely require "transmitting" from a satellite multicast data to mobile units/device.
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte HOURIET et al 12967626 - (D) MOHANTY 103 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP LONG, FONYA M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Chan 12869939 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 Edell, Shapiro & Finnan LLC SIMMS JR, JOHN ELLIOTT
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte BUTTERBAUGH et al 13082676 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC COLEMAN, RYAN L
1793 Ex Parte STRILICH et al 12578929 - (D) WILSON 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Nair 12463135 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) KIM, TAE K
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Satyavolu et al 13082762 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates CPA Global ROJAS, HAJIME S
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 ARTERIS, INC. and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6816814 et al 10/293,734 95000667 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP LIE, ANGELA M original DESTA, ELIAS
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,191,273 et al 10/963,271 95000663 - (D) SIU 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP KE, PENG original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Keller et al 12911117 - (D) GARRIS 102/double patenting NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY YANG, JIE
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Rodgers et al 11743533 - (D) KAISER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HERZOG, MADHURI R
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11671264 - (D) KHAN 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP TRAN, MONG-THUY THI
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte KAWAKAMI 12233754 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/102/103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP YABUT, DANIEL D
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schaeffer et al 11810533 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago MATHEW, SEEMA
3763 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11485619 - (D) MILLS 102/103 IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte van Os et al 12364470 - (D) SHAW 103 103 Apple c/o Morrison & Foerster LLP SF TILLERY, RASHAWN N
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Zufall et al 11797048 - (D) DANG 103 103 Dorsey & Whitney LLP d/b/a DBSD Satellite Services G.P. DISH Network L.L.C. TRAN, PAUL P
Given the language used, the "such that" clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the resulting condition (enabling the mobile units/device to perform an intended function of combining with multicast content) that occurs when the multicast data is transmitted, as positively recited in claims 44 and 69. Thus, the "such that" clause at issue is akin to a "whereby" clause that merely states the result of transmitting the multicast data. Our reviewing court has conluded that "[a] 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation ommitted). Further, our reviewing court guides: "[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). Thus, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, we find the claims merely require "transmitting" from a satellite multicast data to mobile units/device.
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte HOURIET et al 12967626 - (D) MOHANTY 103 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP LONG, FONYA M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Chan 12869939 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 Edell, Shapiro & Finnan LLC SIMMS JR, JOHN ELLIOTT
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte BUTTERBAUGH et al 13082676 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC COLEMAN, RYAN L
1793 Ex Parte STRILICH et al 12578929 - (D) WILSON 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Nair 12463135 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) KIM, TAE K
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Satyavolu et al 13082762 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates CPA Global ROJAS, HAJIME S
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 ARTERIS, INC. and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6816814 et al 10/293,734 95000667 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP LIE, ANGELA M original DESTA, ELIAS
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,191,273 et al 10/963,271 95000663 - (D) SIU 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP KE, PENG original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN
Thursday, May 14, 2015
mayne, catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon, texas instruments
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W
This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).
Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145
1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA
1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C
2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J
Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):
[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114
...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”
Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A
REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W
This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).
Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145
1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA
1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C
2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J
Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):
[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114
...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”
Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A
Labels:
catalina
,
hewlett-packard
,
mayne
,
paragon
,
roberts
,
superior industries
,
texas instruments
Friday, November 7, 2014
texas instruments
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Wang 12298762 - (D) ROESEL 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA S
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Gray et al 11280021 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102 103/112(2) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
We identified where Gray discloses creating a vacuum to produce vapor bubbles as recited in the claim. It is true that the result of “transferring said chemical agent to the surface of said object while said chemical agent is in a vapor state” is not expressly described in Gray. However, this is simply a recitation of the result of “creating a vacuum.” A clause that “merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 11 as obvious in view of Gray is affirmed. Claims 12, 14–16, 18–19, and 21 were not argued separately and fall with claim 11.
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Nacey 11221418 - (D) STRAUSS 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC TRIEU, VAN THANH
REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Wang 12298762 - (D) ROESEL 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA S
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Gray et al 11280021 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102 103/112(2) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
We identified where Gray discloses creating a vacuum to produce vapor bubbles as recited in the claim. It is true that the result of “transferring said chemical agent to the surface of said object while said chemical agent is in a vapor state” is not expressly described in Gray. However, this is simply a recitation of the result of “creating a vacuum.” A clause that “merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 11 as obvious in view of Gray is affirmed. Claims 12, 14–16, 18–19, and 21 were not argued separately and fall with claim 11.
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Nacey 11221418 - (D) STRAUSS 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC TRIEU, VAN THANH
Friday, September 13, 2013
minton, texas instruments
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Burke 12054577 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated MILLIGAN, ADAM C
1612 Ex Parte Vogel et al 10220982 - (D) SCHEINER 103 MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. C/O STOEL RIVES, LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Leidholm et al 12060221 - (D) OWENS 102/103 Nanosolar, Inc. AYAD, TAMIR
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte OZUGUR et al 11463928 - (D) MILLS 103 GARLICK & MARKISON (ALU) SALOMON, PHENUEL S
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Vance 10951826 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON OKEKE, ONYEDIKA C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Vazquez-Anon et al 11674916 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 POLSINELLI PC RAO, SAVITHA M
Cf. Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The term ‘efficiently’ [in the whereby clause] on its face does not inform the mechanics of how the trade is executed …. Rather, the term ‘efficiently’ is a laudatory one characterizing the result of the executing step.”). Although the appealed claims use the word “wherein,” rather than the “whereby” used in Minton’s claim, the introduced clauses merely characterize the result of the method steps but do not inform the mechanics of the method. See also, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.”).
minton HARMON 3: 215; 19: 373
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
HARMON 3: 109, 290; 4: 58, 228; 6: 5, 111, 215; 7: 24, 54; 8: 13, 22, 177, 192, 213; 9: 134; 14: 77, 83, 88; 18: 401; 19: 420, 436; 20: 154, 168, 186, 194, 209, 211, 277; 21: 76
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Hiruma et al 11718971 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KASHNIKOW, ERIK
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Fang et al 12002895 - (D) KIMLIN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION KO, JASON Y
1727 Ex Parte Murai 11883577 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E
1727 Ex Parte ABE et al 11927102 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP ALEJANDRO, RAYMOND
1764 Ex Parte Sahade et al 11918788 - (D) McKELVEY 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP HUHN, RICHARD A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Jung et al 11107343 - (D) ANDERSON 101/102 Constellation Law Group, PLLC AHMED, MOHAMMED
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Burke 12054577 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated MILLIGAN, ADAM C
1612 Ex Parte Vogel et al 10220982 - (D) SCHEINER 103 MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. C/O STOEL RIVES, LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Leidholm et al 12060221 - (D) OWENS 102/103 Nanosolar, Inc. AYAD, TAMIR
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte OZUGUR et al 11463928 - (D) MILLS 103 GARLICK & MARKISON (ALU) SALOMON, PHENUEL S
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Vance 10951826 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON OKEKE, ONYEDIKA C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Vazquez-Anon et al 11674916 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 POLSINELLI PC RAO, SAVITHA M
Cf. Minton v. National Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The term ‘efficiently’ [in the whereby clause] on its face does not inform the mechanics of how the trade is executed …. Rather, the term ‘efficiently’ is a laudatory one characterizing the result of the executing step.”). Although the appealed claims use the word “wherein,” rather than the “whereby” used in Minton’s claim, the introduced clauses merely characterize the result of the method steps but do not inform the mechanics of the method. See also, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. International Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.”).
minton HARMON 3: 215; 19: 373
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
HARMON 3: 109, 290; 4: 58, 228; 6: 5, 111, 215; 7: 24, 54; 8: 13, 22, 177, 192, 213; 9: 134; 14: 77, 83, 88; 18: 401; 19: 420, 436; 20: 154, 168, 186, 194, 209, 211, 277; 21: 76
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Hiruma et al 11718971 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KASHNIKOW, ERIK
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Fang et al 12002895 - (D) KIMLIN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION KO, JASON Y
1727 Ex Parte Murai 11883577 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E
1727 Ex Parte ABE et al 11927102 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP ALEJANDRO, RAYMOND
1764 Ex Parte Sahade et al 11918788 - (D) McKELVEY 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP HUHN, RICHARD A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Jung et al 11107343 - (D) ANDERSON 101/102 Constellation Law Group, PLLC AHMED, MOHAMMED
Thursday, April 25, 2013
rouffet, texas instruments
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Komatsu et al 11064149 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP KRUER, KEVIN R
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained);
Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 1216.01
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11462082 - (D) CURCURI 103 IBM CORPORATION SAEED, USMAAN
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Krumme et al 11536237 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP ANDERSON, GUY G
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Ogilvie 11532514 - (D) SMEGAL 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 TUROCY & WATSON, LLP HOLLY, JOHN H
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Lahti et al 10632026 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO
3779 Ex Parte Saadat et al 11036029 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 USGI Medical, Inc. KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Brust et al 12029972 - (D) McKELVEY 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY HEINCER, LIAM J
1778 Ex Parte Lauer 11990929 - (D) TORCZON 103 Roylance Abrams Berdo & Goodman KURTZ, BENJAMIN M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Manczak et al 11654148 - (D) EVANS 103 Oracle America/ SUN / STK BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte vonDoenhoff et al 11130557 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC INGVOLDSTAD, BENNETT
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Chigusa et al 11752500 - (D) WEATHERLY 112(2)/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. ALGAHAIM, HELAL A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Huddleston 10765501 - (D) KILE 112(2)/103 DAVID E. HUDDLESTON BUI, LUAN KIM
3767 Ex Parte Vaillancourft et al 12321900 - (D) MILLS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP
REHEARING
GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson 11831625 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EVERAGE, KEVIN D
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Komatsu et al 11064149 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP KRUER, KEVIN R
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained);
Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 1216.01
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11462082 - (D) CURCURI 103 IBM CORPORATION SAEED, USMAAN
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Krumme et al 11536237 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP ANDERSON, GUY G
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Ogilvie 11532514 - (D) SMEGAL 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 TUROCY & WATSON, LLP HOLLY, JOHN H
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Lahti et al 10632026 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO
3779 Ex Parte Saadat et al 11036029 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 USGI Medical, Inc. KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Brust et al 12029972 - (D) McKELVEY 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY HEINCER, LIAM J
1778 Ex Parte Lauer 11990929 - (D) TORCZON 103 Roylance Abrams Berdo & Goodman KURTZ, BENJAMIN M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Manczak et al 11654148 - (D) EVANS 103 Oracle America/ SUN / STK BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte vonDoenhoff et al 11130557 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC INGVOLDSTAD, BENNETT
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Chigusa et al 11752500 - (D) WEATHERLY 112(2)/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. ALGAHAIM, HELAL A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Huddleston 10765501 - (D) KILE 112(2)/103 DAVID E. HUDDLESTON BUI, LUAN KIM
3767 Ex Parte Vaillancourft et al 12321900 - (D) MILLS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP
REHEARING
GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson 11831625 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EVERAGE, KEVIN D
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
lighting world, texas instruments, unique concepts
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Akiyama et al 10/757,413 GUEST 103(a)/37 C.F.R § 41.50(b) 112(1) 112(2) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HEITBRINK, JILL LYNNE
[W]e consider these claim terms to be nonce words or verbal constructs which are simply a substitute for the term “means” of § 112, paragraph 6. Specifically, the term “determinant” is no more than a verbal construct for the phrase “means for determining” and the phrase “marking applier” is no more than a verbal construct for the phrase “means for applying a marking.” See Lightning World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Golla 11/017,349 HOMERE 102(e) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Bennett 10/443,302 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH Q
3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 10/880,995 O’NEILL 102(a)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
3765 Ex Parte Siegl 11/270,377 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
3767 Ex Parte Gesler 11/230,433 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Sakai et al 11/007,552 JEFFERY 103(a) STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/244,686 KIM 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TINKLER, MURIEL S
See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language
cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect).
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . .716.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/346,698 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3627 MICROBLEND TECHNOLOGIES Requester and Respondent v. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,027 7,250,464 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: STEPHEN E. JOHNSON, ESQ. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY Third Party Requester: ALBERT L. SCHMEISER SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS LLP EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER JASMIN, LYNDA C
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Wehr et al 11/136,991 PRATS 103(a) CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Himmel et al 11/871,362 CHEN 102(b)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER NELSON JR, MILTON
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boylan et al 10/764,841 O’NEILL 103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/Abbott EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
3761 Ex Parte Van Dyke 11/116,654 O’NEILL 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHAPMAN, GINGER T
REHEARING
DENIED
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Coppinger et al 11/189,192 JEFFERY 101/102/103 STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L
NEW
REVERSED
2186 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/008,316 HOMERE 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART3632 Ex Parte Cavello et al 10/728,674 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STERLING, AMY JO
1713 Ex Parte Fortin et al 11/457,911 HASTINGS 103(a) MARKS & CLERK EXAMINER DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD
AFFIRMED
2185 Ex Parte Sen et al 11/132,081 HOMERE 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T
2617 Ex Parte Sylvain 10/999,392 RUGGIERO 103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER GONZALEZ, AMANCIO
2185 Ex Parte Thayer 11/115,675 ZECHER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J
3689 Ex Parte Borg et al 09/820,457 OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D
Labels:
lighting world
,
texas instruments
,
unique concepts
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)