REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Hein et al 10/867,537 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER PAK, YONG D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Panz et al 11/036,987 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1765 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/104,759 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10/702,415 JEFFERY 103(a) Lester F. Ludwig EXAMINER FLETCHER, MARLON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Papsdorf 09/905,274 STAICOVICI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3732 Ex Parte Tarr 10/906,861 HORNER 103(a) HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/674,974 JEFFERY 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2174 Ex Parte Haynes 10/794,831 COURTENAY 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER KE, PENG

2186 Ex Parte Lee 10/390,667 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Stelea et al 11/181,122 KERINS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER JOHNSON III, HENRY M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3618 PlaSmart Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: Morris Manning Martin LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Jeffrey Sonnabend Sonnabend Law EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER CAMPBELL, KELLY E

To the extent that Requester’s argument is based on a “common sense” rationale, neither the Examiner nor Requester offers an adequate explanation on this record to support such a conclusion. See Trimed Inc. v. Stryker, 608 F.3d 1333, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Merely saying that an invention is a logical, commonsense solution to a known problem does not make it so.”)

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Jailkhani et al 11/246,569 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC EXAMINER GANGLE, BRIAN J

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references . . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The perspective from which these findings are made . . . is that of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention,” Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc., 45 F. 3d 1550, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995), who is presumed to have knowledge of all “pertinent prior art,” In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir 1992).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Carlson, In re, 983 F.2d 1032, 25 USPQ2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . .2126

1616 Ex Parte Miles 10/161,260 McCOLLUM 103(a) James F. Vaughan Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1615 Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/349,743 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S

1623 Ex Parte Zikria et al 11/213,303 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) EVELYN M. SOMMER EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte Gaertner 10/883,236 HOMERE 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Downey 11/123,758 DANG 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINERLIPMAN, JACOB

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Breiner 11/322,051 MacDONALD T.H.P. RICHARDSON EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Li 11/489,054 SMITH 102(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1781 Ex Parte Graham et al 11/405,153 FREDMAN 103(a) STITES & HARBISON, PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1786 Ex Parte Hamada et al 10/736,368 SMITH 102(b) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Hessling et al 10/415,700 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2179 Ex Parte Scott 10/983,606 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such a way as to distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of protection afforded by the patent. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Vamco Machine and Tool, Inc., In re, 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 2286, 2686.04

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Kikinis 10/192,198 SAADAT 103(a) CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC EXAMINER DECKER, CASSANDRA L

2437 Ex Parte Frantzen et al 11/178,585 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Klee et al 10/302,349 BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(4)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NXP, B.V. NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Murphy 11/186,356 KERINS 103(a) JOSEPH E. MUETH, ESQ. JOSEPH E. MUETH LAW CORPORATION EXAMINERS WINEHART, EDWIN L

3671 Ex Parte Gertner 11/142,599 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3672 Ex Parte Alliot 10/507,428 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL

3623 Ex Parte Bargnes et al 10/705,359 MOHANTY 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3657 Ex Parte Niessen 10/733,486 O’NEILL 103(a) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

A change in the method or principle of operation of the primary reference can render a modification nonobvious. For example, in In re Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. 270 F.2d 810, 811-813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as change the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification in Ratti fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how the sealed interface was attained. The facts of the present are analogous to the facts in Ratti.

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

3686 Ex Parte Brown 09/810,334 FETTING 101/102(e) HEALTH HERO NETWORK, INC.
EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ashton et al 10/774,768 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Waelbroeck et al 09/750,768 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3686 Ex Parte Wyatt 10/736,373 FETTING 103(a) PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER NAJARIAN, LENA

The most pertinent finding here is that association of the information being entered is not a structural limitation. "[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Eisenhut 11/294,331 SILVERBERG dissent BAHR 102(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/402,257 PRATS 103(a) ELAN DRUG DELIVERY, INC. C/O FOLEY & LARDNER EXAMINER LEA, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Bourgeois et al 11/518,669 COLAIANNI 103(a) RISSMAN HENDRICKS & OLIVERIO, LLP EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Cannon et al 11/008,393 JEFFERY 112(1)/101/103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

“If rebuttal evidence of adequate weight is produced, the holding of prima facie obviousness . . . is dissipated. Regardless of whether the prima facie case could have been characterized as strong or weak, the examiner must consider all of the evidence anew.” In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Piasecki, In re, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 716.01(d), 2107.02, 2142, 2145

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Challenger et al 10/034,726 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM AUSTIN EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

2445 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/403,561 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHILLIPS, HASSAN A

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Koegler et al 10/661,753 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

2627 Ex Parte Koegler et al 10/661,722 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/119,626 SAADAT 103(a) MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A. EXAMINER DOAK, JENNIFER L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Adler 10/091,859 FETTING 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ERB, NATHAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte de Saint-Aignan et al 10/741,731 SILVERBERG 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER UTAMA, ROBERT J

REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kothandaraman et al 11/115,752 O’NEILL 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Bartsch 10/625,582 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

1781 Ex Parte Graham et al 11/405,143 FREDMAN 103(a) STITES & HARBISON, PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Paller et al 10/832,546 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) ALBERTDHAND LLP EXAMINER SPIELER, WILLIAM

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/627,548 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER CURS, NATHAN M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Lunsford et al 11/348,895 GARRIS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

1733 Ex Parte Merrill et al 11/235,494 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte White et al 11/561,463 MacDONALD 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOAI AN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Blankstein 11/227,869 PATE III 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3742 Ex Parte Koenekamp et al 11/368,059 McCARTHY 101/112(2)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER CAMPBELL, THOR S

REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Scherschel et al 10/931,172 MACDONALD 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA

Combining known elements for the purpose of convenience does not impart patentability to the combination. See Anderson’s-Black Rock, 396 U.S. at 61 (“The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a ‘new or different function,’ Lincoln Engineering Co. of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545, 549, 58 S.Ct. 662, 664, 82 L.Ed. 1008, within the test of validity of combination patents.”).

Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.01(a), 2141, 2143.01

Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545, 37 USPQ 1 (1938). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(j)

REVERSED

Ex Parte Ainsworth et al
Ex Parte Fagan

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Finch et al
Ex Parte Karaoguz et al
Ex Parte Maroney et al
Ex Parte Van Vleck et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Chen
Ex Parte Heine
Ex Parte Kim et al
Ex Parte Manfredi
Ex Parte Moon et al
Ex Parte Mott et al
Ex Parte Pappas et al
Ex Parte Roesler et al
Ex Parte Yoshida

REVERSED

Ex Parte Baryshnikov
Ex Parte Desclos et al
Ex Parte Gudorf
Ex Parte Herman
Ex Parte Prakken et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Rudzinski et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Blair et al
Ex Parte Bosworth et al
Ex Parte Chen
Ex Parte Ideker
Ex Parte Kinoshita et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Mooney et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Au et al

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chidambarrao et al
Ex Parte Drew et al
Ex Parte Fontoura et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Barsness et al
Ex Parte Doddek et al
Ex Parte Hanawa et al
Ex Parte Schiller

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte CRODA EUROPE LTD.

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brock et al
Ex Parte Koskey
Ex Parte Sibbesen et al

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bates et al
Ex Parte De Ceuster et al
Ex Parte Minton
Ex Parte Nefzger et al
Ex Parte Ng-Thow-Hing et al
Ex Parte Reynolds
Ex Parte Samant et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Addis et al
Ex Parte Brunner
Ex Parte Gil et al
Ex Parte Reding et al
Ex Parte Steger
Ex Parte Yamanaka et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Babic
Ex Parte Benitsch
Ex Parte Brunner
Ex Parte Cavusoglu et al
Ex Parte Duffy
Ex Parte Frutos et al
Ex Parte Hood
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Lawton et al
Ex Parte McCormick et al
Ex Parte Mills et al
Ex Parte Pinsl-Ober et al
Ex Parte Rehmanji et al
Ex Parte Sims

REHEARING

Ex Parte Murray

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10/824,023 COLAIANNI 103(a) MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Thayyoor et al 10/993,702 DANG 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER STIGLIC, RYAN M

2162 Ex Parte Gottsman 10/361,988 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Vedder Price PC EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

2178 Ex Parte Cross et al 11/154,896 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kurapati et al 10/179,315 KRIVAK 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Hardwick 10/482,730 HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2628 Ex Parte Sloan et al 10/692,361 KRIVAK 103(a) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP EXAMINER BROOME, SAID A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Vanbortel et al 10/852,536 KRIVAK 103(a) PRASS LLP EXAMINER GRAINGER, QUANA MASHELL

2857 Ex Parte Klein et al 11/065,331 BAUMEISTER 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM Tucson EXAMINER CHARIOUI, MOHAMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte McNamara et al 10/556,801 O’NEILL 112(1)/103(a) DAVID J. GASKEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Fearon et al 10/879,983 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) WEISS & MOY PC EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M

3721 Ex Parte Griggs et al 11/151,670 PATE III 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3773 Ex Parte Gunderson 10/912,917 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3737 Ex Parte Siegel et al 11/219,372 PATE III 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3737 Ex Parte TEARNEY et al 11/534,095 McCARTHY 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3711 Ex Parte Thomas et al 10/090,685 LORIN 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/115,433 FRANKLIN 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER FRASER, STEWART A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Metsatahti et al 10/715,093 DANG 103(a) NOKIA CORPORATION AND ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Khartabil 10/755,205 DANG 103(a)/112(2) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

2447 Ex Parte Koning et al 10/762,985 HOMERE 102(e) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Thevenon 10/889,412 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER GROSSO, HARRY A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2832 Ex parte ANASCAPE, LTD. 90/008,379 5,999,084 SIU 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JARED S. GOFF KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER EASTHOM, KARL D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1751 Ex parte Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,273 6,313,081 LANE obviousness-type double-patenting Ratner Prestia Novozymes North America, Inc. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1751 Ex parte Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,274 6,767,879 LANE obviousness-type double-patenting Ratner Prestia Novozymes North America, Inc. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3677 Ex parte PANDUIT CORPORATION Appellant 90/008,800 6,745,439 BOALICK 103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATRICK J. FLEIS RYAN, KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER BRITTAIN, JAMES R

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bachand et al
Ex Parte Birkestrand et al
Ex Parte Bradford et al
Ex Parte Burkhardt et al
Ex Parte Celi et al
Ex Parte Chang et al
Ex Parte Childress et al
Ex Parte Fields et al
Ex Parte Hu et al
Ex Parte Ibrahim
Ex Parte Iizuka et al
Ex Parte Ishikawa et al
Ex Parte Kajita
Ex Parte Kapp et al
Ex Parte Laney et al
Ex Parte Majkrzak
Ex Parte Maltby et al
Ex Parte Martino et al
Ex Parte Nakanishi
Ex Parte Nikolic et al
Ex Parte Regini et al
Ex Parte Risner
Ex Parte Schnetzler
Ex parte SHIRLEY
Ex Parte Soerens et al
Ex Parte Stuckman et al
Ex Parte Swisher et al
Ex Parte Toas et al
Ex Parte Torvinen et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Goodhue
Ex Parte Mikami
Ex Parte Tsukimori et al
Ex Parte Vickers et al

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Matson 11/323,844 McCOLLUM 112(1) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER KIM, YOUNG J

1621 Ex Parte Genger et al 10/525,468 SMITH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Pfeiler 11/258,857 SMITH 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1722 Ex Parte Meagley et al 10/956,284 COLAIANNI 112(1) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

1792 Ex Parte Cassidy et al 11/235,397 WARREN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Brodhun et al 10/965,186 DANG 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Herbeck et al 10/365,298 KRIVAK 102(e) Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Tamura et al 10/553,424 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER NEWMAN, MICHAEL A

2629 Ex Parte May 10/620,811 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) Novak Druce DeLuca + Quigg LLP (CSR) EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Class-Dieter et al 10/439,769 MacDONALD 103(a) King & Spaulding LLP EXAMINER RUDE, TIMOTHY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Brusso et al 10/358,644 CRAWFORD 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3664 Ex Parte Gildenberg 12/259,456 BAHR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER TRAN, KHOI H

3686 Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,020 CRAWFORD 101/112(2)/103(a) ERIC B. MEYERTONS CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Jasperson et al 10/809,157 BAHR 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

3723 Ex Parte Swisher et al 11/466,641 BAHR 103(a) Deborah M. Altman PPG Industries, Inc. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUNG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Chickering et al 11/257,473 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER ROBINSON BOYCE, AKIBA K

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3652 Ex parte VICTOR G. CAPONEY Appellant 90/008,963 6,616,400 ROBERTSON 305/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Joseph T. Guy, Ph.D. Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Thomas E. Epting Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann PC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

35 U.S.C. § 305 reads, in relevant part: “No proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent will be permitted in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter.”

A claim under reexamination is broader in scope than the original patent claims “if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent . . . A claim that is broader in any respect is considered to be broader than the original claims even though it may be narrower in other respects.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (applying test for enlargement in reissue applications under 35 U.S.C. § 251 of Tillotston Ltd. V. Walbro Corp, 831 F.2d 1033, 1037 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987), to § 305).

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01

Tillotson Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 4 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . .1412.03

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex Parte Witzig et al 10/979,284 WALSH 103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, JAMES D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Froseth et al 09/780,273 SMITH 103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

1761 Ex Parte Braeckman et al 10/851,713 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1776 Ex Parte McCrea et al 11/616,398 HASTINGS 103(a) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

1761 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/468,882 SMITH 102(b) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER KOPEC, MARK T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Guido et al 10/814,551 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/523,940 MacDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER ELPENORD, CANDAL

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Morikawa 10/521,166 MARTIN 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER REINIER, BARBARA DIANE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Pekny et al 10/683,075 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN THU T

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Distefano 10/418,470 LUCAS 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL LLP ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Elnagar et al 11/251,640 GRIMES 103(a) MR. EDGAR E. SPIELMAN, JR. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE

In re Tatincloux, 228 F.2d 238 (CCPA 1955), does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed concurrent process would have been an obvious modification of the prior art sequential processes. As the court later clarified, in Tatincloux’s method, “the process steps involved were entirely physical in nature,” In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785, 787 (CCPA 1970), and the holding in Tatincloux did not support a conclusion that “the performance of [a] reaction in one step, as claimed, was made obvious by the prior performance of the same reaction in two steps.” Id. at 786. The Freed court thus held that the rule of law relied on by the Examiner in the present appeal did not apply to Freed’s modification of a chemical reaction, previously performed in two steps, to be performed in a single step. Put another way, a conclusion of obviousness is based on the facts in each case, rather than a per se rule. See id. (“In this, as in any case, a determination of
obviousness must be based on facts and not on unsupported generalities.”).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Lane et al 10/521,884 TIMM 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Cherkasova 10/429,797 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TODD, GREGORY G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Prentice 11/000,783 LEE 112(2)/102(b) CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP EXAMINER LOWE, MICHAEL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Von Gunten 10/454,341 SONG 103(a) Mark Manley Central Missouri State University EXAMINER WILSON, GREGORY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2100 Ex Parte Bates et al 10/821,146 STEPHENS 101/112(1)/112(2) GRANT A. JOHNSON IBM CORPORATION, DEPT. 917 EXAMINER KISS, ERIC B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Field 10/196,151 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER MENDOZA, MICHAEL G

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,031 6,343,314 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP Third Party Requester: Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER DINH, DUNG C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,015 6,437,818 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith, LLP Shook, Hardy& Bacon, LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that references in a patent specification to prior art padlocks and broad scope of locking device claims indicated that padlocks were analogous art to trailer hitch lock devices, reasoning inter alia that KSR requires “us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly”) (citing and quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2757 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,008 6,212,547 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Tawni L. Wilhelm SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER DINH, DUNG C

The material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) (“[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,079 6,972,786 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith, LLP Third Party Requester: Tawni L. Wilhelm EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER ENG, GEORGE

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3635 Ex parte JORGEN J. MOLLER, JR., Appellant 90/009,124 7,299,592 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & HART FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: THORPE, NORTH & WESTERN, LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J original EXAMINER KWIECINSKI, RYAN D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3744 Ex parte Mustang Engineering, L.P., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,379 7,318,319 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GILBRETH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TODD T. TUMEY EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER EARLY, MICHAEL JACOBY

In addition, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3744 Ex parte Mustang Engineering, L.P., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,380 7,360,367 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GILBRETH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TODD T. TUMEY EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER EARLY, MICHAEL JACOBY

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 PENTEL CO., LTD. AND PENTEL OF AMERICA, LTD. Requestor and Respondent v. BENJAMIN J. KWITEK Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,399 6,447,190 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) cc Patent Owner: LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Adams and Wilks EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER PRUNNER, KATHLEEN J

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 Ex parte PRAGMATUS AV LLC 90/009,021 7,152,093 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP Third Party Requester: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER REILLY, SEAN M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex parte TRANSACTION HOLDINGS LTD. LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,323 6,945,457 TURNER Concurring EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) cc: PATENT OWNER: TROUTMAN SANDERS LP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Douglas S. Foote NCR Corporation EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER LE, THIEN MINH

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2684 Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,063 6,480,710 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) cc: PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2684 Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,065 6,625,439 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUAN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lotze et al 10/688,845 GRIMES 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER JUEDES, AMY E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Teutsch et al 10/399,547 HASTINGS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN EXAMINER MOORE, KARLA A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Knitter 10/635,815 HAHN 112(1)/112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,541 MacDONALD 103(a) VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte May et al 10/567,718 McCARTHY 102(b) ROBERT D. SHEDD, PATENT OPERATIONS THOMSON LICENSING LLC EXAMINER WUJCIAK, ALFRED J

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Banatwala et al 10/744,302 STEPHENS 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LO, WEILUN