pfizer2

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11/881,211 GUEST 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER ZHAO, XIAO SI

1721 Ex Parte Tan et al 10/970,077 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G

1731 Ex Parte Nakashima et al 10/533,302 OWENS 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

1742 Ex Parte Steele 10/656057 OWENS 103(a) INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. EXAMINER BUTLER, PATRICK NEAL

1762 Ex Parte Beckley et al 10/660,186 OWENS 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER BERNSHTEYN, MICHAEL

1785 Ex Parte Kapkin 10/490,449 TIMM 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Finn 10/282,438 SMITH 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2477 Ex Parte Sohraby et al 10/115,519 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(1)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Brunson et al 11/387,179 SPAHN 103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3694 Ex parte Mainline Corporate Holdings, Limited Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,191 7,328,188 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MESCHKOW & GRESHAM P.L.C. Lowell W. Gresham, Esq. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP Irving E. Branch, Esq. EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER TRAMMELL, JAMES P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Secrist et al 12/053,970 WALSH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP (Southern Research Institute) EXAMINER BAEK, BONG-SOOK

1633 Ex Parte Droge et al 10/082,772 GREEN 103(a) Steven L. Highlander FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, QUANG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Cherepy et al 10/913,573 TIMM 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1735 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 11/098,512 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER IP, SIKYIN

"[B]y definition, any superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness." Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F. 3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQd 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01, 2145

1761 Ex Parte Butler et al 11/475,282 TIMM 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Agrawala et al 10/788,503 JEFFERY 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER FABER, DAVID

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/535,296 KRIVAK 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Lifson et al 11/200,364 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3784 Ex Parte Stark et al 11/225,533 SAINDON 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Fikstad et al 09/871,318 GRIMES 103(a) BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

NEW

REVERSED

3653 Ex Parte Coleman et al 11/222,580 HORNER 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BEAUCHAINE, MARK J

2456 Ex Parte Finn 10/282,438 SMITH 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER
BATES, KEVIN T

2617 Ex Parte Ganesh 10/974,073 RUGGIERO 103(a) Honeywell International Inc. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

3663 Ex Parte Han et al 11/342,760 CLARKE 103(a) YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C. EXAMINER KEITH, JACK W

3624 Ex Parte Nash et al 11/323,792 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER JARRETT, SCOTT L

3634 Ex Parte Sees 11/034,171 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER KELLY, CATHERINE A

2163 Ex Parte Takatsuka et al 10/959,913 STEPHENS 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T

AFFIRMED

3632 Ex Parte Akouka et al 10/543,371 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

2626 Ex Parte Coffman et al 10/701,784 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. EXAMINER JACKSON, JAKIEDA R

1723 Ex Parte Craig et al 10/103,411 STAICOVICI 103(a) EXAMINER WILKINS III, HARRY D FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)

3764 Ex Parte Daskal 09/489,655 BAHR 103(a) Charles R Macedo Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

2186 Ex Parte Hilland et al 10/400,313 POTHIER 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

1643 Ex Parte Hung 10/622,743 GREEN 103(a) CYTYC CORPORATION EXAMINER SANG, HONG

2186 Ex Parte Rajakarunanayake 11/237,126 ZECHER 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER FISHBURN, JOHN P

REMANDED

2618 Ex Parte Anderson 10/917,968 BARTLETT after final amendment not considered FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER REGO, DOMINIC E

3767 Ex Parte Tucker 11/012,824 BARTLETT reply brief not considered LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A

arkley, purdue pharma, ariad

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Thomsen et al 11/583,135 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, JUN

Anticipation does not, however, lie where it is necessary to pick and choose among various disclosures to find a description of the later-claimed invention. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88 (CCPA 1972)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Loda 10/082,958 SIU 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Tysoe et al 10/672,623 PAK 102(e) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER LE, HOA T

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Creamer et al 10/740,701 HOFF 103(a) International Business Machines Corporation CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC

2618 Ex Parte Martino 10/947,853 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(1)/103(a) Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc EXAMINER NGUYEN, SIMON

"[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc. 230 F.3d 1320, 1326 (2000) Rather the specification must provide some guides or "blade marks" that disclose the claimed invention "specifically, as something applicants actually invented." Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . .2163, 2163.05 AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Antrim et al 11/184,989 MILLS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D

1627 Ex Parte Salamone et al 11/391,060 ADAMS 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER HUANG, GIGI GEORGIANA

1643 Ex Parte Swetledge 11/493,651 ADAMS 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER HARRIS, ALANA M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Deaton 10/949,041 DANG 102(b) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S

2188 Ex Parte Beuten et al 10/633,113 POTHIER 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Foo et al 11/018,264 RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER STREGE, JOHN B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Aufderheide et al 10/686,141 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER RUDE, TIMOTHY L

2885 Ex Parte Cleaver et al 10/771,174 KOHUT 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND
REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Verdon et al 11/424,046 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) GRIFFIN & SZIPL, PC EXAMINER COLLINS, JASON M

NEW

REVERSED

2444 Ex Parte Loda 10/082,958 SIU 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2451 Ex Parte Nirkhe et al 10/017,469 DIXON 103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

2617 Ex Parte AVID IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 90/008,702 5,499,017 SIU dissent TORCZON 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner DLA PIPER US LLP Third Party Requesters Marger Johnson & McCollom PC EXAMINER PEIKARI, BEHZAD original EXAMINER SWANN III, GLEN R

AFFIRMED

1638 Ex Parte Abad et al 11/982,700 GRIMES 102(b)/102(e)/112(1) Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Monsanto EXAMINER KUMAR, VINOD

1762 Ex Parte Correll et al 11/114,336 GARRIS 102(b) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

3627 Ex Parte Emde et al 11/323,954 DESHPANDE 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

2432 Ex Parte Hori 09/947,547 NAPPI 102(e) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2432 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/128,839 SMITH 103(a) EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Den Hartog et al 10/946,177 FREDMAN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER O DELL, DAVID K

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Pickering et al 10/000,975 HANLON 102(e)/103(a) ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS LLC EXAMINER RHEE, JANE J

1726 Ex Parte Sano et al 11/858,142 KRATZ 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Coppens et al 11/190,832 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MENDOZA, JUNIOR O
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Derechin et al 10/299,260 NAPPI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Knight 11/306,674 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3102 Ex parte Lacks Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,422 5,597,213 ROBERTSON 102(b) PATENT OWNER: Price Heneveld Cooper Dewitt & Litton, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MacMillian Sobanski & Todd, LLC EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original VAN OPHEM & VANOPHEM, PC REMY J VANOPHEM, PC EXAMINER STORMER, RUSSELL D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Mason et al 10/335,774 FREDMAN 103(a) MICHAEL L. DUNN SIMPSON & SIMPSON, PLLC EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Badawi et al 11/072,953 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LO, KENNETH M

2193 Ex Parte Ramchandani 10/649,903 GONSALVES 103(a) Jeffrey C. Hood Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Hough et al 11/209,224 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER LEJA, RONALD W

NEW

REVERSED

1623 Ex Parte Pihlava et al 10/250,912 McCOLLUM 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

2453 Ex Parte Rehman et al 10/977,741 CHEN 102(e) Kraguljac & Kalnay, LLC - Oracle EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

1649 Ex Parte Shafer 11/000,856 GRIMES 103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EXAMINER WANG, CHANG YU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2188 Ex Parte Doren et al 10/760,640 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

1613 Ex Parte Farr et al 11/496,873 ADAMS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEA, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND

1621 Ex Parte Wolfert et al 11/523,556 WALSH 103(a)/obviousness-type double OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PUTTLITZ, KARL J
patenting

fisher, mostafazadeh

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Buckhaults et al 10/487,934 WALSH 101/112(1)/112(2) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

“It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Gray et al 10/903,585 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER WANG, LIANG CHE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

The most recent version of the MPEP now has the following sentence prior to the portion cited by the Examiner.

A statement of "failure to include a claim directed to" and then presenting a newly added claim, would not be considered a sufficient "error" statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.

MPEP 1414, II, C. Thus, this portion of the MPEP puts the phrasing regarding hypothetical new claim 10, supra, in context as merely requiring that the Applicants do more than just recite the added claim numbers and contents without regard to the existing claims. Clearly the Appellants’ declaration has pointed out what the original claims lacked and the newly [added] claims have. ...

We are at a loss to see how the Examiner arrived at this finding as to an exception to the case where claiming entirely new inventions does not involve recapture. ... We find no authority in the statutes, case law, or even the MPEP for the Examiner’s finding. Instead, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that no recapture exists in such circumstance.

The Board’s reliance on this portion of the MPEP is misplaced. This portion of the MPEP deals with claims in which there is no need to apply the recapture rule in the first place. The recapture rule is triggered only where the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims because the surrendered subject matter has been re-claimed in whole or substantial part … In contrast, this portion of the MPEP addresses reissue claims directed at “additional inventions/embodiments /species not originally claimed.” Because the subject matter of these claims was “not originally claimed,” it is wholly unrelated to the subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution and the recapture rule is not even triggered. In re Mostafazadeh --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1642830, Slip Opinion 2010-1260 (Fed Cir 5/3/2011).

3687 Ex Parte Gerzymisch et al 11/541,433 KIM 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER AN, IG TAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Mathews 10/359,878 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Wilson Ham & Holman EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Dugal et al 11/801,719 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CUTLIFF, YATE KAI RENE

1631 Ex Parte Ledley 10/200,978 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1655 Ex Parte Joseph et al 12/136,341 GRIMES 102(b) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Thiebes et al 10/847,529 GARRIS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Surles 10/157,126 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER ZURITA, JAMES H

3682 Ex Parte Hammond et al 11/691,458 KIM 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wangler et al 10/961,248 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) John C. McMahon EXAMINER LANDRUM, EDWARD F

3773 Ex Parte de la Torre et al 11/203,267 SAINDON 103(a) THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER MASHACK, MARK F

3781 Ex Parte Gilliam et al 11/103,331 SAINDON 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

NEW

REVERSED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

3727 Ex Parte Prell et al 11/492,326 BROWN 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

2625 Ex Parte Pruden et al 10/455,097 WINSOR 103(a) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP EXAMINER VO, QUANG N

3624 Ex Parte Sikes 11/952,490 KIM 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER JARRETT, SCOTT L

1618 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/431,353 GRIMES 103(a) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3689 Ex Parte Baggett 09/877,159 FETTING FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

1733 Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/671,851 GARRIS 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/002,546 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

AFFIRMED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/903,457 FETTING 251/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

2441 Ex Parte Kridner 10/306,493 HUGHES 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

2121 Ex Parte Selim et al 11/790,354 POTHIER 112(2)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R

2882 Ex Parte Sukovic et al 10/914,610 BAUMEISTER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CORBETT, JOHN M

pall corp

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Dybing 10/646,852 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Knighton et al 10/911,783 JEFFERY 1o3(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PANNALA, SATHYANARAYA R

2185 Ex Parte Stevens 10/956,840 COURTENAY 112(2)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2883 CORNING, INC. Requestor v. VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,215 7,567,742 EASTHOM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) BLANK ROME LLP Third Party Requester: Nixon Peabody LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER HEALY, BRIAN

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex parte TRONOX, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,955 6,638,401 DELMENDO 305/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) WILMERHALE/BOSTON EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D C Clark Dougherty Jr McAfee & Taft original EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

In claim drafting, “[t]he use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, “[i]ts range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context.” Id.
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Rich et al 10/760,464 GUEST 103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/344,930 DANG 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHANG, SUNRAY

NEW

REVERSED

3771 Ex Parte Knepper 11/035,124 BAHR 102(e) FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D

AFFIRMED

2164 Ex Parte Hoth et al 11/106,412 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER HOTELLING, HAROLD A

2441 Ex Parte Issa 10/927,291 NAPPI 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y

2161 Ex Parte Khan et al 10/814,365 MORGAN 103(a) GOOGLE / FENWICK EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

2838 Ex Parte Lomax et al 11/184,634 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) FOGG & POWERS LLC EXAMINER LAXTON, GARY L

2191 Ex Parte Opaterny 10/768,732 ZECHER 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
CHEN, QING

3694 Ex Parte Trivedi 10/097,866 FETTING 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M

REHEARING DENIED

3685 Ex Parte Obrea et al 11/142,619 FETTING 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REMANDED

1781 Ex Parte Coleman et al 11/250,425 BARTLETT reply brief not considered FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

DISMISSED

1611 Ex Parte Pinna et al 11/289,474 JORDAN abandoned OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S

ngai

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Mumaw 11/136,157 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) TIMOTHY M. BARLOW EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

The content or meaning of printed matter recited in a claim does not structurally distinguish the subject matter of the claim from prior art unless there is a new or nonobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the remainder of the claimed subject matter. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2164 Ex parte ABLAISE LIMITED 90/010,311 6,961,737 SIU 102(a)/102(e) For Patent Owner: NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC For Third Party Requester: Linda J. Thayer, Esq. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H original EXAMINER RONES, CHARLES

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3712 MEGA BRANDS AMERICA, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of HASBRO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,098 6,729,932 SONG 112(2)/103(a)/double patenting For Patent Owner: MILLER, MATTHIAS & HULL LLP (HASBRO) For Third Party Requester: MICHEAL R. FRISCIA MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP (Hasbro) original EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JAMILA O
AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Rincavage et al 10/086,253 TURNER 103(a) Philip D. Freedman PC EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D

NEW

REVERSED

1713 Ex Parte Gu et al 11/229,825 KRATZ 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALANKO, ANITA KAREN

1782 Ex Parte Tan 10/644,435 NAGUMO 103(a) BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

REEXAMINATION

2161 TALEO CORPORATION Respondent, Cross-Appellant v. KENEXA BRASSRING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,060 6,996,561 SIU 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER AMSBURY, WAYNE P

AFFIRMED

1767 Ex Parte Grooms et al 11/487,622 GUEST 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

2166 Ex Parte Narang et al 10/982,475 DESHPANDE 103(a) Ojanen Law Offices EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN

REMANDED

2478 Ex Parte Bornstein et al 11/266,661 BARTLETT amendment after final IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER MYERS, JASMINE

3634 Ex Parte Daume 10/950,503 BARTLETT reply brief not considered SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

2475 Ex Parte Mirtorabi et al 11/292,535 BARTLETT amendment after final CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER KAVLESKI, RYAN C

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Binelli 10/910,120 SILVERBERG 103(a) LEAR CORPORATION, BLISS MCGLYNN, P.C. EXAMINER OMGBA, ESSAMA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Dacosta 10/397,445 WINSOR 102(e)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JUNTIMA, NITTAYA

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2785 Ex parte FINJAN INC. Appellant 90/008,684 6,167,520 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner: King and Spalding LLP Third Party Requester: HOWISON & ARNOTT L.L.P. LLP EXAMINER BANANKHAH, MAJID A Eitan Law Group original EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2832 NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Requester v. Patent of ANASCAPE, LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,225 95/000,226 6,351,205 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON Third Party Requesters: NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA MICHAEL J. KEENAN NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A brad a. armstrong original EXAMINER EASTHOM, KARL D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2832 NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Requester v. ANASCAPE, LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,230 95/000,224 6,563,415 SIU 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON Third Party Requesters: MICHAEL J. KEENAN For NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP For MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A Brad A. Armstrong original EXAMINER EASTHOM, KARL D
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Wu 10/176,971 FREDMAN 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Paladini et al 10/105,479 DANG 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Butler 10/350,439 BARRY 103(a) IP Administration C/o Hewlett-Packard Company EXAMINER JEAN GILLES, JUDE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Hostetler 11/233,321 HOELTER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ANGWIN, DAVID PATRICK
REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Lee 09/735,697 HAHN 102 LaRIVIERE, GRUBMAN & PAYNE, LLP EXAMINER DEBERADINIS, ROBERT L

NEW

REVERSED

1732 Ex Parte Male et al 11/022,897 GAUDETTE dissenting TIMM 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER HAILEY, PATRICIA L

3634 Ex Parte Rejc 10/523,631 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3711 Ex Parte Svatovic 11/397,977 SILVERBERG 103(a) ZARKO SVATOVIC EXAMINER MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3753 Ex Parte Elston et al 11/041,449 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) QUARLES & BRADY LLP EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

2171 Ex Parte Hunleth et al 10/768,422 POTHIER 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER BAUTISTA, XIOMARA L

REEXAMINATION

2832 NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Requester v. ANASCAPE, LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,230 95/000,224 6,563,415 SIU 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON Third Party Requesters: MICHAEL J. KEENAN For NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP For MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER EASTHOM, KARL D

AFFIRMED

2442 Ex Parte Benhamou 10/695,952 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) Terry W. Kramer, Esq. Kramer & Amado, P.C. EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

2197 Ex Parte Butler 10/904,436 ZECHER 101/102(b)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, MARINA

2164 Ex Parte Gut et al 10/793,741 HUGHES 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Jason H. Vick Sheridan Ross, PC EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

3725 Ex Parte Hubball 11/234,499 SILVERBERG 103(a) STORM LLP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DEBRA M

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Dawes et al 10/053,365 NAGUMO 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Belady et al 11/058,554 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REHMAN, MOHAMMED H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Afghahi et al 10/795,825 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/517,471 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) NXP, B.V. NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER BONZO, BRYCE P
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/008,057 5,351,285 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN L. WELSH EXAMINER original EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L KIELIN, ERIK J

NEW

REEXAMINATION

06/06/2011 2608 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/008,057 5,351,285 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN L. WELSH WELSH & FLAXMAN LLC EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

AFFIRMED

1744 Ex Parte Sreenivasan et al 10/923,629 HASTINGS 103(a) MOLECULAR IMPRINTS EXAMINER LUK, EMMANUEL S

DISMISSED

2433 Ex Parte Simske et al 11/467,539 SHAW RCE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA

2445 Ex Parte Solt 11/353,548 SHAW RCE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, BRYAN Y

3623 Ex Parte Shen et al 10/046,226 SHAW JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

kaplan, kuhle, cordis, praxair, miyazaki

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,893 SMITH 103(a)/non-statutory obvious-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY- MD 0750 EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

“[T]here must be some clear evidence to establish why the variation would have been obvious which can properly qualify as ‘prior art.’” In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804
1731 Ex Parte Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al 10/534,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Hendrix et al 11/290,291 SPAHN 103(a) Brocade Communications c/o Bever, Hoffman & Harms, LLP EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Kovac 11/444,445 CLARKE 102(b)/103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

With regard to the rationale of the Examiner, the predecessor of our reviewing court has stated that design choice is inapplicable in a rejection where the use of the claimed feature solves a stated problem. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)(use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” ).

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
3763 Ex Parte Simas et al 11/138,553 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER PRICE, NATHAN R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Nabors et al 10/517,732 FREDMAN 103(a) Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Byrum 11/491,371 ADAMS 101/112(1) Arnold & Porter LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

1652 Ex Parte Zandi et al 10/079,949 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
PROUTY, REBECCA E

1655 Ex Parte Lindberg 10/271,186 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10/472,378 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S

1789 Ex Parte Fultz et al 10/955,443 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/386,217 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

2183 Ex Parte Fowles 11/145,601 LUCAS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

“Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

However, during prosecution before this Office, while Appellant still has the opportunity to amend the claims, a higher standard of clarity is required:

In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (precedential opinion) (BPAI 2008).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte McCown et al 10/934,186 CHEN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK EXAMINER FIELDS, COURTNEY D

NEW

REVERSED

06/02/2011 2451 Ex Parte Helsper et al 10/985,664 BARRY 102(e) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

06/22/2011 1777 Ex Parte Olsta et al 11/599,080 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED

06/02/2011 1722 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 10/546,573 GAUDETTE 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

06/03/2011 1765 Ex Parte Musgrave et al 11/027,442 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

06/02/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/357,971 KRATZ non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

06/02/2011 2164 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/864,267 JEFFERY obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

06/02/2011 1745 Ex Parte Tuertscher et al 11/182,422 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAN, SING P

DISMISSED

06/03/2011 1716 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/018,641 BARTLETT RCE Edwards Vacuum, Inc. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT

giacomini, kubin, o'farrell, rolls-royce

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,742 MacDONALD 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Vayssiere 11/024,094 COURTENAY 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LY, ANH

“[A]n applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application. . . . An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publications and certain international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

MPEP § 2136.03 (III.)(bold in original).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/791,432 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LE, DAVID D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Song 10/638,920 GRIMES 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1633 Ex Parte Blanche et al 11/582,427 FREDMAN 103(a) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH

We are not persuaded. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Louis Schupp 11/145,205 NAGUMO 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

1781 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 11/127,714 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,469 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/245,892 GONSALVES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

NEW

AFFIRMED

06/01/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gong et al 10/518,127 GAUDETTE 103(a) EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

06/01/2011 1764 Ex Parte Guenther et al 12/008,740 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A

chu, rice, KSR, kao

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ou-Yang 10/725,795 TIMM Dissenting SMITH 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER JOLLEY, KIRSTEN

1724 Ex Parte Shiota et al 10/436,479 SMITH 103(a) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER VAN, LUAN V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Djugash et al 10/865,261 STEPHENS 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J

2182 Ex Parte Brune et al 10/399,272 MacDONALD 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Li et al 10/404,288 SAADAT 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Ong et al 11/782,812 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Whitworth et al 11/970,885 MOHANTY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Franson et al 11/266,973 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D

3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/020,844 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/786,707 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER FORTUNA, ANA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Raikar et al 10/632,446 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Andreasson et al 10/980,040 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

2618 Ex Parte Vance 10/709,345 FRAHM 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Bossler et al 10/869,685 KAUFFMAN 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER LOUIE, WAE LENNY

In support of their contention that the additional limitations of claims 4-6 and 9 are not merely matters of design choice, Appellants cite In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). App. Br. 9-17; Reply Br. 8-17. To the contrary, Chu supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that such modifications were a matter of obvious design choice where, as here, Appellants fail to describe any difference in function between the prior art and the claims, or to identify any unexpected results attributable to the limitations of those claims. In re Chu, at 298-99 (a finding of “design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)). Further, Appellants‟ contention that the proposed modification is not merely a matter of design choice, “since there is no teaching or suggestion in the art” (App. Br. 10) is unpersuasive because the Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement for a teaching, suggestion or motivation to be in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20, 2145

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Hogg et al 10/674,914 KAUFFMAN 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 10/750,390 MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1648 Ex Parte Ertl et al 10/480,793 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP EXAMINER HILL, MYRON G

1653 Ex Parte Knize 11/387,291 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEN, BIN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Eibeck et al 11/815,723 COLAIANNI 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

Moreover, Appellants have failed to provide an adequate basis that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claim will behave in the same manner as the tested compositions. In re Kao, No. 2010-1308, 2011 WL 1832537, at *8 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011 page 17).

1747 Ex Parte Maziers 11/597,227 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

1782 Ex Parte Bertolino et al 11/203,318 PAK 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Monteleone 10/410,820 DANG 102(b) JACK SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Zuk et al 10/072,683 LUCAS 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER ARANI, TAGHI T

2478 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/244,104 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Kanevsky et al 10/609,769 DROESCH 103(a) PAUL D. GREELEY, ESQ. OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. EXAMINER WHIPKEY, JASON T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Jacobson 11/467,692 WHITEHEAD, JR. Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER BHAT, ADITYA S

2858 Ex Parte Philbrook 11/207,419 HOFF 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER PIGGUSH, AARON C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/273,679 TURNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3686 Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,024 FISCHETTI 103(a) ERIC B. MEYERTONS CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

NEW

REVERSED

1777 Ex Parte Berlin et al 10/262,349 KRATZ 112(1) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (INTEL) EXAMINER GAKH, YELENA G

2165 Ex Parte Brown et al 09/968,353 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP EXAMINER ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

1727 Ex Parte Kearl et al 11/168,712 OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALEJANDRO, RAYMOND

2168 Ex Parte Labossiere et al 10/857,172 POTHIER 102(b) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER SANDERS, AARON J

1716 Ex Parte Lenz 12/078,348 OWENS 102(b) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1767 Ex Parte Menovcik et al 11/239,606 NAGUMO 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2451 Ex Parte Mullendore et al 10/393,957 MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/102(e) HENSLEY KIM & HOLZER, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

1716 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10/902,032 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

2163 Ex Parte Olivieri et al 11/035,262 HUGHES 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

1784 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/290,812 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

1716 Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al 11/390,196 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3641 Ex Parte Eberhart et al 11/011,318 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WIGGIN AND DANA LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, STEPHEN

3727 Ex Parte Fisher 10/821,071 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R

3753 Ex Parte Lochtefeld et al 11/431,910 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES

1723 Ex Parte Voss et al 10/858,656 COLAIANNI 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

AFFIRMED

1774 Ex Parte Kelm 11/264,905 WARREN 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LEUNG, JENNIFER A

1762 Ex Parte Ma et al 11/067,436 KRATZ 112(2)/102/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1742 Ex Parte Richard 10/362,623 GUEST 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

1788 Ex Parte Saitou et al 10/921,845 COLAIANNI 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 CHANG, VICTOR S

REHEARING

DENIED

1787 Ex Parte Breese et al 11/053,962 HANLON 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R