SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label yanush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label yanush. Show all posts

Thursday, May 18, 2017

yanush, casey, twomey

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte McNeill et al 13967085 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (ZPS) WONG, YUEN H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte MOHR et al 14050954 - (D) CUTITTA 101 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP PATEL, DHAIRYA A

2497 Ex Parte YANG 14046063 - (D) KAISER 103 VMWARE, INC. HO, DAO Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2694 Ex Parte VanBlon et al 14258372 - (D) SHAW 102/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC JAVED, MAHEEN I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Winburne et al 13894508 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 HP Inc. GOKHALE, PRASAD V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Churchill et al 12432675 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Vista IP Law Group - Interlace Medical SHI, KATHERINE MENGLIN

Appellants do not point to any distinction between the structure set forth in claim 1 and that of Hibner. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, as is the limitation “wherein actuation of the motor drive assembly causes the inner tube to rotate at a speed of at least about 3000 rotations per minute, and to oscillate translationally at a rate of about 1.5 to about 4 cycles per second,” does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations claimed. See, e.g., In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973) (“Appellant’s use limitation does not impart a structural feature different from those of the prior art. . . . Whether a vibrator is operated gently to settle materials in a mold or more forcefully to ‘hammer’ them is a process limitation which does not limit or define the claimed apparatus.”); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 579—80 (CCPA 1967).

A device claim “cannot properly be allowed unless [it] include[s] structural limitations defining invention over the prior art.” In re Twomey, 218 F.2d 593, 596 (CCPA 1955).

Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) 2115

3735 Ex Parte Henderson et al 12248683 - (D) COTTA 102/103 Covidien LP BERHANU, ETSUB D

3771 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 12427871 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 double patenting HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS STUART, COLIN W

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte T√łnnessen 14123075 - (R) HILL 103 Henry Query, P.C. HANSEN, KENNETH J

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

sullivan, rishoi, otto, ludtke, yanush, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/594,148 GREEN dissenting FREDMAN 101/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SEHARASEYON, JEGATHEESAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/478,401 COLAIANNI 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

1723 Ex Parte Thielert 10/520,853 HANLON 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1727 Ex Parte Gao et al 11/106,225 COLAIANNI 112(2)/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

“[W]hen an applicant puts forth relevant evidence . . . the Board must consider such evidence.” In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1734 Ex Parte Irie et al 10/244,010 COLAIANNI 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1761 Ex Parte Greene et al 11/427,944 COLAIANNI 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER AHVAZI, BIJAN

1789 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN et al 11/388,857 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) Annette M. Frawley, Attorney General Mills EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/982,560 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2186 Ex Parte Nevill 10/781,867 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Boudreau et al 10/318,116 MORGAN 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte NISHIMURA et al 11/844,182 HUGHES 102(e) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Vega et al 10/697,010 DANG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

2628 Ex Parte LAMPING et al 09/124,805 STEPHENS 102(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Gore et al 11/426,677 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Hazama 09/817,123 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

3764 Ex Parte Loyd et al 11/322,443 SAINDON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Kazi et al 10/376,902 HOMERE 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER PARDO, THUY N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/903,121 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, VINH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Matos 10/841,326 SPAHN 112(2)/102(b)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lizio et al 10/564,096 ADAMS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1638 Ex Parte Hillebrand et al 10/593,181 PRATS 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Link 1742 Ex Parte Benavitz et al 11/757,143 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H

1745 Ex Parte Harding et al 11/787,260 GUEST concurring TORCZON 103(a) The Jackson Patent Group EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

1798 Ex Parte Polat et al 10/740,261 GUEST 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Vilalta et al 09/906,168 COURTENAY 112(1)/101/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”).

2167 Ex Parte Bergholz 11/222,881 GONSALVES 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Washino 10/418,341 DANG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2453 Ex Parte Issa 11/234,493 DANG 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Toyozawa et al 10/541,092 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Santurkar et al 11/244,572 DANG 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER TAN, VIBOL

2855 Ex Parte Meinlschmidt et al 10/381,038 DANG 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Ledger et al 11/549,354 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER PHAN, HAU VAN

3635 Ex Parte Baratuci et al 11/305,041 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/490,165 BARRETT 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3754 Ex Parte Dux et al 10/149,988 SPAHN 102(b) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NICOLAS, FREDERICK C

3788 Ex Parte Mitten et al 11/025,743 ASTORINO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN