REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Graf 11/192,938 MORGAN 102(b)/102(a) SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER FLEURANTIN, JEAN B
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Schlecht 10/892,390 PETRAVICK 102(b)/103(a) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Gorelik 10/725,116 MORGAN 103(a) Dr. Victor Gorelik EXAMINER LOUIE, OSCAR A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Ging et al 11/080,446 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING
DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP
In re Kao, 2011 WL 1832537 * 10 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This is not a case where the Board relied on an unknown property of prior art for a teaching. Rather, Maloney’s express teachings render the claimed controlled release oxymorphone formulation obvious, and the claimed ‘food effect’ adds nothing of patentable consequence.”). Further on this point, we think that the following guidance from In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), is instructive:
This court, in reconsidering this case in banc, reaffirms that structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, creates a prima facie case of obviousness, and that the burden (and opportunity) then falls on an applicant to rebut that prima facie case. Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have . . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed compositions and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.
Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
REHEARING
DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
PENTEL CO., LTD. and PENTEL OF AMERICA, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of BENJAMIN J. KWITEK Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,399 6,447,190 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ADAMS AND WILKS EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Gentle 10/667,110 DANG 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/662,406 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Jaranson et al 11/530,067 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R
3687 Ex Parte Watson et al 10/555,914 KIM 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER CRAWLEY, TALIA F
NEW
REVERSED
1767 Ex Parte Borke et al 11/717,944 MILLS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2812 Ex Parte Tsakalakos et al 10/273,926 HAHN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER MULPURI, SAVITRI
AFFIRMED
2816 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/054,310 SAADAT 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER TRA, ANH QUAN
1644 Ex Parte Goldenberg et al 11/534,124 FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B
1761 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/957,759 MILLS 103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R
2629 Ex Parte Kambayashi 11/068,144 SAADAT 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL
2182 Ex Parte Klein 10/424,206 HUGHES 102(e) Dorsey & Whitney LLP-IP Dept.-MTI EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO
1641 Ex Parte Rosenstein et al 11/117,825 FREDMAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T
DISMISSED
2117 Ex Parte Dubey 11/437,420 Shaw new ground of rejection SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVE N
Monday, June 27, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
diamond2, sterling, miller2, gulack, ngai
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Slungaard et al 10/427,271 GRIMES 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W
1641 Ex Parte Chandler et al 11/027,652 WALSH 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Saha et al 11/392,381 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Latorse et al 10/553,363 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
See e.g., In re Diamond, 360 F.2d 214, 217 (CCPA 1966) (affirming obviousness where the evidence showed that synergy was expected because combined drugs targeted different cellular mechanisms, and no evidence to the contrary was produced).
1619 Ex Parte Bush 10/759,970 HASTINGS 103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1628 Ex Parte Rau 11/263,976 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steven B. Kelber Berenato & White, LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
1657 Ex Parte Doyle et al 11/701,848 GREEN 102(b) JONES DAY EXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Bergeron 12/003,735 GREEN 102(b) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A
1722 Ex Parte Lungu 11/296,902 TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C
2184 Ex Parte Baugher et al 11/299,916 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STEVEN G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Fiden et al 10/428,516 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P
3728 Ex Parte Charng 10/887,911 SPAHN 102(b) BERENATO & WHITE, LLC EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM
[P]atentability cannot be predicated on printing alone. In re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, 912 (CCPA 1934).
Printed matter can patentability distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the claimed printed matter and the claimed substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The PTO has the better argument”).
Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(a)
Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
NEW
REVERSED
1781 Ex Parte Ammann et al 10/564,452 GREEN 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A
1765 Ex Parte Nguyen 11/732,389 TIMM 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1623 Ex Parte Bostrom et al 10/582,308 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D
2628 Ex Parte Han et al 10/957,032 HAHN 102(a)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M
3626 Ex Parte Logue 11/013,927 FISCHETTI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
AFFIRMED
3627 Ex Parte Ames et al 10/842,758 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD
2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,581 ZECHER 103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T
3731 Ex Parte Kantor et al 10/827,819 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
2444 Ex Parte Wilding et al 10/401,413 CHEN 102(e) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Slungaard et al 10/427,271 GRIMES 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W
1641 Ex Parte Chandler et al 11/027,652 WALSH 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Saha et al 11/392,381 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Latorse et al 10/553,363 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
See e.g., In re Diamond, 360 F.2d 214, 217 (CCPA 1966) (affirming obviousness where the evidence showed that synergy was expected because combined drugs targeted different cellular mechanisms, and no evidence to the contrary was produced).
1619 Ex Parte Bush 10/759,970 HASTINGS 103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1628 Ex Parte Rau 11/263,976 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steven B. Kelber Berenato & White, LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
1657 Ex Parte Doyle et al 11/701,848 GREEN 102(b) JONES DAY EXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Bergeron 12/003,735 GREEN 102(b) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A
1722 Ex Parte Lungu 11/296,902 TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C
2184 Ex Parte Baugher et al 11/299,916 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STEVEN G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Fiden et al 10/428,516 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P
3728 Ex Parte Charng 10/887,911 SPAHN 102(b) BERENATO & WHITE, LLC EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM
[P]atentability cannot be predicated on printing alone. In re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, 912 (CCPA 1934).
Printed matter can patentability distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the claimed printed matter and the claimed substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The PTO has the better argument”).
Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(a)
Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
NEW
REVERSED
1781 Ex Parte Ammann et al 10/564,452 GREEN 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A
1765 Ex Parte Nguyen 11/732,389 TIMM 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1623 Ex Parte Bostrom et al 10/582,308 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D
2628 Ex Parte Han et al 10/957,032 HAHN 102(a)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M
3626 Ex Parte Logue 11/013,927 FISCHETTI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
AFFIRMED
3627 Ex Parte Ames et al 10/842,758 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD
2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,581 ZECHER 103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T
3731 Ex Parte Kantor et al 10/827,819 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
2444 Ex Parte Wilding et al 10/401,413 CHEN 102(e) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M
Thursday, June 23, 2011
jones
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Tsujimichi et al 10/625,272 KRATZ 102(e)/103(a) CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M
1782 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 10/837,782 NAGUMO Concurring WARREN 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A
The Federal Circuit flatly rejected such an analysis in the context of obviousness in In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“We decline to extract from Merck the rule that the Solicitor appears to suggest—that regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.”). A reference that does not adequately support obviousness will not suffice to support a demonstration of anticipation. It is not unusual for improved properties to be discovered within a previously disclosed range of a composition.
Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08
1782 Ex Parte Nehls et al 10/681,649 NAGUMO 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1796 Ex Parte Glorioso et al 10/478,568 WARREN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Lyle et al 10/881,842 DILLON 103(a) IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ EXAMINER LO, WEILUN
2185 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/624,808 STEPHENS 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Neuwald et al 10/628,254 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Berger 10/822,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Sanchelima and Associates, P.A. Jesus Sanchelima, Esq. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
3634 Ex Parte Gillen 10/781,395 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11/234,145 KERINS 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J
3743 Ex Parte Potgieter et al 10/718,351 SAINDON 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MARK O. LOFTIN EXAMINER BASICHAS, ALFRED
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Hancke Orozco et al 10/516,500 GRIMES 102(b) PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC EXAMINER RAHMANI, NILOOFAR
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Van Doren et al 10/760,813 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
2188 Ex Parte Tierney et al 10/760,652 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Kishi et al 11/230,567 STAICOVICI 102(e) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER BINDA, GREGORY JOHN
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3617 VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,346 6,234,853 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: William D. Lanyi Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Third Party Requester: Harold R. Brown III, Esq. WRB-IPLLP EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER SOTELO, JESUS D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Aberg 11/474,154 GRIMES 103(a) Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Colbert 10/625,624 HASTINGS 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA
1786 Ex Parte Chhabra et al 10/712,239 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Jaeger 10/953,053 BARRY 103(a) WILSON & HAM EXAMINER VAUGHN, GREGORY J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Laux et al 10/301,314 BAUMEISTER 102(e) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Oh et al 10/561,559 BROWN 103(a) Theodore W Olds Carlson Gaskey & Olds EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
3674 Ex Parte Taguchi 11/797,690 SAINDON 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Turner et al 10/827,465 BAHR 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
NEW
REVERSED
1777 Ex Parte Bothe et al 11/814,642 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZALASKY, KATHERINE M
2474 Ex Parte Forissier et al 10/901,138 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIYAMI, ABDULLA A
2182 Ex Parte Hofstee et al 10/697,903 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) EXAMINER HASSAN, AURANGZEB
1741 Ex Parte Iguchi et al 10/802,837 HASTINGS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L
1618 Ex Parte Whitbourne et al 09/834,307 ADAMS 103(a) ANGIOTECH EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1774 Ex Parte Hunsinger et al 11/362,588 GARRIS 103(a) Klaus J. Bach EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E
3711 Ex Parte Rigoli 11/023,074 KAUFFMAN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Bay State IP, LLC EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S
REEXAM
2818 Ex parte LIZY KURIAN JOHN 90/008,853 5,867,422 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. Third Party Requester MARK L. BECKER LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH M original EXAMINER FEARS, TERRELL W
AFFIRMED
2191 Ex Parte Fay et al 10/917,726 COURTENAY 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SATISH
2184 Ex Parte Gregorcyk 10/279,484 DROESCH 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS
1731 Ex Parte Shanholtz et al 10/870,889 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) ATK c/o Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A. EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
2625 Ex Parte Vilanova et al 10/371,957 FRAHM 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHENG, JACKY X
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Tsujimichi et al 10/625,272 KRATZ 102(e)/103(a) CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M
1782 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 10/837,782 NAGUMO Concurring WARREN 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A
The Federal Circuit flatly rejected such an analysis in the context of obviousness in In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“We decline to extract from Merck the rule that the Solicitor appears to suggest—that regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.”). A reference that does not adequately support obviousness will not suffice to support a demonstration of anticipation. It is not unusual for improved properties to be discovered within a previously disclosed range of a composition.
Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08
1782 Ex Parte Nehls et al 10/681,649 NAGUMO 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1796 Ex Parte Glorioso et al 10/478,568 WARREN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Lyle et al 10/881,842 DILLON 103(a) IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ EXAMINER LO, WEILUN
2185 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/624,808 STEPHENS 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Neuwald et al 10/628,254 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Berger 10/822,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Sanchelima and Associates, P.A. Jesus Sanchelima, Esq. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
3634 Ex Parte Gillen 10/781,395 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11/234,145 KERINS 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J
3743 Ex Parte Potgieter et al 10/718,351 SAINDON 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MARK O. LOFTIN EXAMINER BASICHAS, ALFRED
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Hancke Orozco et al 10/516,500 GRIMES 102(b) PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC EXAMINER RAHMANI, NILOOFAR
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Van Doren et al 10/760,813 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
2188 Ex Parte Tierney et al 10/760,652 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Kishi et al 11/230,567 STAICOVICI 102(e) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER BINDA, GREGORY JOHN
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3617 VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,346 6,234,853 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: William D. Lanyi Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Third Party Requester: Harold R. Brown III, Esq. WRB-IPLLP EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER SOTELO, JESUS D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Aberg 11/474,154 GRIMES 103(a) Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Colbert 10/625,624 HASTINGS 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA
1786 Ex Parte Chhabra et al 10/712,239 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Jaeger 10/953,053 BARRY 103(a) WILSON & HAM EXAMINER VAUGHN, GREGORY J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Laux et al 10/301,314 BAUMEISTER 102(e) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Oh et al 10/561,559 BROWN 103(a) Theodore W Olds Carlson Gaskey & Olds EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
3674 Ex Parte Taguchi 11/797,690 SAINDON 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Turner et al 10/827,465 BAHR 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
NEW
REVERSED
1777 Ex Parte Bothe et al 11/814,642 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZALASKY, KATHERINE M
2474 Ex Parte Forissier et al 10/901,138 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIYAMI, ABDULLA A
2182 Ex Parte Hofstee et al 10/697,903 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) EXAMINER HASSAN, AURANGZEB
1741 Ex Parte Iguchi et al 10/802,837 HASTINGS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L
1618 Ex Parte Whitbourne et al 09/834,307 ADAMS 103(a) ANGIOTECH EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1774 Ex Parte Hunsinger et al 11/362,588 GARRIS 103(a) Klaus J. Bach EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E
3711 Ex Parte Rigoli 11/023,074 KAUFFMAN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Bay State IP, LLC EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S
REEXAM
2818 Ex parte LIZY KURIAN JOHN 90/008,853 5,867,422 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. Third Party Requester MARK L. BECKER LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH M original EXAMINER FEARS, TERRELL W
AFFIRMED
2191 Ex Parte Fay et al 10/917,726 COURTENAY 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SATISH
2184 Ex Parte Gregorcyk 10/279,484 DROESCH 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS
1731 Ex Parte Shanholtz et al 10/870,889 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) ATK c/o Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A. EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
2625 Ex Parte Vilanova et al 10/371,957 FRAHM 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHENG, JACKY X
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
KCJ, hilton
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Weller 11/187,741 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Li et al 10/465,750 KRIVAK 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Choi 10/864,870 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THINH T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Tam et al 10/800,293 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER MARSH, STEVEN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sato et al 11/429,320 HORNER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN
3741 Ex Parte Wood 10/443,324 HORNER 103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S
3742 Ex Parte Ciancimino et al 11/041,634 GREENHUT 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Barbee et al 11/189,191 COURTENAY 101/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Della-Libera et al 11/254,519 DROESCH 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Burkum et al 11/198,101 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, JONG SUK
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Ortiz et al 11/197,528 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,415 6,925,242 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,413 7,167,625 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Karen A. Fitzsimmons MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC original EXAMINER LEE, JOHN D
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,412 6,868,220 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) FOR PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Kuklinski et al 10/511,882 WALSH 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 10/723,554 OWENS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC
1784 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/284,424 OWENS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LANGMAN, JONATHAN C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Tsai et al 11/433,195 DANG 112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) J.C. Patents EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J
2175 Ex Parte Mingot et al 10/557,397 ZECHER 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER ZAHR, ASHRAF A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Knittel et al 10/780,833 MORGAN 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Jones 11/274,665 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kunow et al 10/489,573 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA
See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article "a‟ or "an‟ in patent parlance carries the meaning of "one or more‟ in openended claims containing the transitional phrase "comprising.‟ [citations omitted.]”).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Smith 11/958,382 KIM 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER BALDORI, JOSEPH B
Compare Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356, 356-57 (Bd. App. 1965) (claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified moisture and fat content, whereas the prior art was directed to french fries having a higher moisture content. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of a product is of no patentable significance, the Board held in this case the shape (chips) is important because it results in a product which is distinct from the reference product (french fries)).
Hilton, Ex parte, 148 USPQ 356 (Bd. App. 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
REISSUE
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Lechot 10/431,450 6,238,398 KAUFFMAN 102(b) Greatbatch Ltd. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VI X
NEW
REVERSED
1617
Ex Parte Brillouet et al
11/483,903 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI
2163 Ex Parte Hillebrand 10/524,655 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T
2471 Ex Parte Hruska 10/253,092 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Werner Ulrich EXAMINER WONG, WARNER
1724 Ex Parte Hwang 11/324,344 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON
AFFIRMED
3663 Ex Parte Akers et al 11/106,871 O’NEILL 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J
2837 Ex Parte Babb et al 10/830,660 KOHUT Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID
2478 Ex Parte Berstis et al 11/044,569 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
3689 Ex Parte Brice et al 10/464,180 FISCHETTI 102(e) Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER
MOONEYHAM, JANICE A
2434 Ex Parte Della-Libera et al 10/068,444 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID
2452 Ex Parte Fank et al 10/658,139 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HOANG, HIEU T
1722 Ex Parte Hada et al 10/547,632 OWENS 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
2471 Ex Parte LeBlanc 10/077,405 MACDONALD 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER WONG, WARNER
2166 Ex Parte Motoyama et al 10/460,404 COURTENAY 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
1763 Ex Parte Roesler et al 11/198,734 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Weller 11/187,741 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Li et al 10/465,750 KRIVAK 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Choi 10/864,870 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THINH T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Tam et al 10/800,293 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER MARSH, STEVEN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sato et al 11/429,320 HORNER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN
3741 Ex Parte Wood 10/443,324 HORNER 103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S
3742 Ex Parte Ciancimino et al 11/041,634 GREENHUT 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Barbee et al 11/189,191 COURTENAY 101/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Della-Libera et al 11/254,519 DROESCH 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Burkum et al 11/198,101 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, JONG SUK
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Ortiz et al 11/197,528 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,415 6,925,242 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,413 7,167,625 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Karen A. Fitzsimmons MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC original EXAMINER LEE, JOHN D
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,412 6,868,220 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) FOR PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER PALMER, PHAN T H
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Kuklinski et al 10/511,882 WALSH 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 10/723,554 OWENS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC
1784 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/284,424 OWENS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LANGMAN, JONATHAN C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Tsai et al 11/433,195 DANG 112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) J.C. Patents EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J
2175 Ex Parte Mingot et al 10/557,397 ZECHER 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER ZAHR, ASHRAF A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Knittel et al 10/780,833 MORGAN 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Jones 11/274,665 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kunow et al 10/489,573 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA
See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article "a‟ or "an‟ in patent parlance carries the meaning of "one or more‟ in openended claims containing the transitional phrase "comprising.‟ [citations omitted.]”).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Smith 11/958,382 KIM 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER BALDORI, JOSEPH B
Compare Ex parte Hilton, 148 USPQ 356, 356-57 (Bd. App. 1965) (claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified moisture and fat content, whereas the prior art was directed to french fries having a higher moisture content. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of a product is of no patentable significance, the Board held in this case the shape (chips) is important because it results in a product which is distinct from the reference product (french fries)).
Hilton, Ex parte, 148 USPQ 356 (Bd. App. 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
REISSUE
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Lechot 10/431,450 6,238,398 KAUFFMAN 102(b) Greatbatch Ltd. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VI X
NEW
REVERSED
1617
Ex Parte Brillouet et al
11/483,903 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI
2163 Ex Parte Hillebrand 10/524,655 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T
2471 Ex Parte Hruska 10/253,092 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Werner Ulrich EXAMINER WONG, WARNER
1724 Ex Parte Hwang 11/324,344 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON
AFFIRMED
3663 Ex Parte Akers et al 11/106,871 O’NEILL 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J
2837 Ex Parte Babb et al 10/830,660 KOHUT Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID
2478 Ex Parte Berstis et al 11/044,569 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
3689 Ex Parte Brice et al 10/464,180 FISCHETTI 102(e) Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER
MOONEYHAM, JANICE A
2434 Ex Parte Della-Libera et al 10/068,444 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID
2452 Ex Parte Fank et al 10/658,139 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HOANG, HIEU T
1722 Ex Parte Hada et al 10/547,632 OWENS 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
2471 Ex Parte LeBlanc 10/077,405 MACDONALD 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER WONG, WARNER
2166 Ex Parte Motoyama et al 10/460,404 COURTENAY 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
1763 Ex Parte Roesler et al 11/198,734 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
halliburton, general electric, holmwood, newkirk, coleman
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kabra et al 10/610,090 PRATS 102(a)/103(a) Patrick M. Ryan(Q-148) Alcon Research, Ltd. EXAMINER HARTLEY, MICHAEL G
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Rosenflanz et al 10/211,684 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Roehrle et al 11/193,815 MacDONALD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Iritani et al 10/468,800 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(5) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER RATCLIFFE, LUKE D
3694 Ex Parte Lozano 10/821,610 PETRAVICK 112(1)/101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Boyle et al 10/662,697 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO
Thus, as suggested by Appellants, the claims’ point of novelty lies within functional language. See Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a vice of functional claiming occurs … ‘when … conveniently functional language [is used] at the exact point of novelty.’”) (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Torrey et al 10/982,279 MORGAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Amarr Company Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Wayne-Dalton Corp. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,304 6,640,872 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: PHILLIP L. KENNER RENNER, KEENER, GREIVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY R. MCFADDEN WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEV, BRUCE ALLEN
To prove a reduction to practice, an applicant must show that “the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.” Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, (Fed.Cir.1987)).
The Federal Circuit “applies a ‘rule of reason’ standard when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence about reduction to practice.” Id., at 1238 (citing Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The rule of reason “requires the Patent and Trademark Office to examine, analyze, and evaluate reasonably all pertinent evidence when weighing the credibility of an inventor's story.” Id., at 1239.
“Only an inventor's testimony needs corroboration . . . [T]he Board must view the evidence as a whole to determine if the inventor's story withstands careful examination.” Id.
Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . 715.07 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Ponder et al 11/762,313 MILLS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1629 Ex Parte Amalric et al 10/466,558 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ROYDS, LESLIE A
1654 Ex Parte Li et al 10/664,697 PRATS 103(a) BELL & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA
2424 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/078,877 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
NEW
REVERSED
1741 Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/844,947 OWENS 112(2)/112(1) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
2437 Ex Parte Destidar et al 10/165,938 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GERGISO, TECHANE
2448 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/848,159 THOMAS 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VERIZON EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN
2492 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/433,856 THOMAS 112(1)/103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J
2871 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 11/065,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN
3634 Ex Parte Obinata et al 11/321,913 ASTORINO 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E
3634 Ex Parte Sullivan 11/004,230 ASTORINO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED
1618 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER Vu, Jake
2617 Ex Parte Borst et al 10/422,286 SAADAT 103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE
2853 Ex Parte Donovan 11/017,995 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER HUFFMAN, JULIAN D
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA
2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/944,623 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER YEN, SYLING
2478 Ex Parte Holder 10/138,453 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S
3738 Ex Parte Jang 10/419,280 STAICOVICI 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
2439 Ex Parte Kean 10/900,011 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C
3752 Ex Parte Petrovic et al 11/359,647 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W
2451 Ex Parte Ramamoorthy et al 10/751,899 ZECHER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH
2161 Ex Parte Yuan et al 10/930,486 POTHIER 103(a) RIM EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kabra et al 10/610,090 PRATS 102(a)/103(a) Patrick M. Ryan(Q-148) Alcon Research, Ltd. EXAMINER HARTLEY, MICHAEL G
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Rosenflanz et al 10/211,684 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Roehrle et al 11/193,815 MacDONALD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Iritani et al 10/468,800 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(5) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER RATCLIFFE, LUKE D
3694 Ex Parte Lozano 10/821,610 PETRAVICK 112(1)/101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Boyle et al 10/662,697 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO
Thus, as suggested by Appellants, the claims’ point of novelty lies within functional language. See Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a vice of functional claiming occurs … ‘when … conveniently functional language [is used] at the exact point of novelty.’”) (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Torrey et al 10/982,279 MORGAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Amarr Company Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Wayne-Dalton Corp. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,304 6,640,872 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: PHILLIP L. KENNER RENNER, KEENER, GREIVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY R. MCFADDEN WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEV, BRUCE ALLEN
To prove a reduction to practice, an applicant must show that “the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.” Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, (Fed.Cir.1987)).
The Federal Circuit “applies a ‘rule of reason’ standard when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence about reduction to practice.” Id., at 1238 (citing Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The rule of reason “requires the Patent and Trademark Office to examine, analyze, and evaluate reasonably all pertinent evidence when weighing the credibility of an inventor's story.” Id., at 1239.
“Only an inventor's testimony needs corroboration . . . [T]he Board must view the evidence as a whole to determine if the inventor's story withstands careful examination.” Id.
Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . 715.07 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Ponder et al 11/762,313 MILLS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1629 Ex Parte Amalric et al 10/466,558 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ROYDS, LESLIE A
1654 Ex Parte Li et al 10/664,697 PRATS 103(a) BELL & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA
2424 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/078,877 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
NEW
REVERSED
1741 Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/844,947 OWENS 112(2)/112(1) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
2437 Ex Parte Destidar et al 10/165,938 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GERGISO, TECHANE
2448 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/848,159 THOMAS 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VERIZON EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN
2492 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/433,856 THOMAS 112(1)/103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J
2871 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 11/065,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN
3634 Ex Parte Obinata et al 11/321,913 ASTORINO 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E
3634 Ex Parte Sullivan 11/004,230 ASTORINO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED
1618 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER Vu, Jake
2617 Ex Parte Borst et al 10/422,286 SAADAT 103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE
2853 Ex Parte Donovan 11/017,995 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER HUFFMAN, JULIAN D
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA
2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/944,623 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER YEN, SYLING
2478 Ex Parte Holder 10/138,453 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S
3738 Ex Parte Jang 10/419,280 STAICOVICI 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
2439 Ex Parte Kean 10/900,011 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C
3752 Ex Parte Petrovic et al 11/359,647 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W
2451 Ex Parte Ramamoorthy et al 10/751,899 ZECHER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH
2161 Ex Parte Yuan et al 10/930,486 POTHIER 103(a) RIM EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD
Monday, June 20, 2011
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Iannicelli 11/275,591 SMITH 103(a) Joseph Iannicelli EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10/858,502 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) VERIZON EXAMINER ROSE, KERRI M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2683 Ex parte WIRELESS VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 90/009,093 6,625,454 EASTHOM 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Ingrassia Fisher & Lorenz, PC Third Party Requester: Cesari and McKenna, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER MOORMAN, EARL J
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Myatt et al 10/704,253 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Conger et al 10/331,948 HASTINGS 103(a) THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
1786 Ex Parte Fereshtehkhou et al 11/089,411 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lazar et al 10/672,280 GREEN 102(e) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU
NEW
REVERSED
1722 Ex Parte Barr et al 11/378,933 ROBERTSON 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
1721 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/575,662 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER ZHANG, RACHEL L
AFFIRMED
1617 Ex Parte Marion 11/287,420 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YU, GINA C
1733 Ex Parte Yuse et al 11/317,181 WARREN 103(a) EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Iannicelli 11/275,591 SMITH 103(a) Joseph Iannicelli EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10/858,502 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) VERIZON EXAMINER ROSE, KERRI M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2683 Ex parte WIRELESS VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 90/009,093 6,625,454 EASTHOM 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Ingrassia Fisher & Lorenz, PC Third Party Requester: Cesari and McKenna, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER MOORMAN, EARL J
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Myatt et al 10/704,253 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Conger et al 10/331,948 HASTINGS 103(a) THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
1786 Ex Parte Fereshtehkhou et al 11/089,411 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lazar et al 10/672,280 GREEN 102(e) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU
NEW
REVERSED
1722 Ex Parte Barr et al 11/378,933 ROBERTSON 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
1721 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/575,662 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER ZHANG, RACHEL L
AFFIRMED
1617 Ex Parte Marion 11/287,420 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YU, GINA C
1733 Ex Parte Yuse et al 11/317,181 WARREN 103(a) EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Friday, June 17, 2011
porter2, kuehl, blattner, pfizer, steele, kropa
REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Burkart et al 11/401,558 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(4) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four, requires that a dependent claim specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 6 recites in its entirety, “An electric belt retractor with a control arrangement to carry out the method of claim 1.” Reciting that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is “to carry out” a particular method does not further limit that method. Intent relates to a state of mind and there is nothing in claim 6 actually requiring performance of the steps recited in claim 1. See, e.g., In re Hansen, 99 USPQ 319, 321 (BPAI 1953); compare In re Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992) (citing In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658 (CCPA 1973) and In re Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)); See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claims 7-13 depend from claim 6. Only claim 6 contains a reference to claim 1. Accordingly, we find claims 6-13 fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We recognize that the Appellants could have drafted claims 6-13 as properly depending from claim 1 or could have written claim 6 in independent form. However, we decline to speculate about what the Appellants intend to claim and reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 without opinion on the merits thereof. See id.; see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).
Kuehl, In re, 425 F.2d 658, 177 USPQ 250 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.01
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)
Blattner, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.09
3673 Ex Parte Kavounas 11/248,929 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rice 11/003,199 KAUFFMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER BRINSON, PATRICK F
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Tsang et al 11/169,095 HOMERE 101/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING
2186 Ex Parte Rau 11/021,707 DANG 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
REHEARING
GRANTED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 FRAHM 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A
NEW
REVERSED
1729 Ex Parte Drake et al 10/664,822 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2165 Ex Parte Buros et al 11/268,931 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER HOANG, SON T
AFFIRMED
2815 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/230,772 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER CLARK, JASMINE JHIHAN B
2448 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,653 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N
2425 Ex Parte Kelly 10/515,696 FRAHM 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V
2453 Ex Parte Shalabi et al 10/984,090 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
2166 Ex Parte Stecker 10/918,520 MORGAN 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
1761 Ex Parte Trinh 11/059,078 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Burkart et al 11/401,558 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(4) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four, requires that a dependent claim specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 6 recites in its entirety, “An electric belt retractor with a control arrangement to carry out the method of claim 1.” Reciting that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is “to carry out” a particular method does not further limit that method. Intent relates to a state of mind and there is nothing in claim 6 actually requiring performance of the steps recited in claim 1. See, e.g., In re Hansen, 99 USPQ 319, 321 (BPAI 1953); compare In re Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992) (citing In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658 (CCPA 1973) and In re Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)); See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claims 7-13 depend from claim 6. Only claim 6 contains a reference to claim 1. Accordingly, we find claims 6-13 fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We recognize that the Appellants could have drafted claims 6-13 as properly depending from claim 1 or could have written claim 6 in independent form. However, we decline to speculate about what the Appellants intend to claim and reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 without opinion on the merits thereof. See id.; see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).
Kuehl, In re, 425 F.2d 658, 177 USPQ 250 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.01
Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)
Blattner, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.09
3673 Ex Parte Kavounas 11/248,929 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rice 11/003,199 KAUFFMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER BRINSON, PATRICK F
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Tsang et al 11/169,095 HOMERE 101/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING
2186 Ex Parte Rau 11/021,707 DANG 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
REHEARING
GRANTED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 FRAHM 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A
NEW
REVERSED
1729 Ex Parte Drake et al 10/664,822 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2165 Ex Parte Buros et al 11/268,931 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER HOANG, SON T
AFFIRMED
2815 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/230,772 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER CLARK, JASMINE JHIHAN B
2448 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,653 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N
2425 Ex Parte Kelly 10/515,696 FRAHM 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V
2453 Ex Parte Shalabi et al 10/984,090 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
2166 Ex Parte Stecker 10/918,520 MORGAN 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
1761 Ex Parte Trinh 11/059,078 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
Thursday, June 16, 2011
bose, energizer holdings, slimfold, ormco, riverwood
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte SHINOHARA 11/682,188 HANLON 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMERON, ERMA C
1733 Ex Parte Asahi et al 10/410,014 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(2) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Furthermore, a lack of antecedent basis is not per se a reason for finding a claim indefinite. “In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”’ Energizer Holdings Inc. v. International Trade Com’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 61 USPQ2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2173.05
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . 2173.05(e)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Freund et al 11/220,015 SILVERBERG 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU
3737 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/942,115 O’NEILL 103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Buchalter 11/237,438 FREDMAN 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Viviano 11/453,657 SAINDON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FLOYD B. CAROTHERS CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER CAJILIG, CHRISTINE T
Because a dependent claim includes all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends, the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 9 is obvious is also a conclusion that claim 1 is obvious for the same reasons. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”).
3637 Ex Parte Becke et al 10/816,371 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WILKENS, JANET MARIE
3663 Ex Parte Blaudin De The 10/583,626 BROWN 112(2)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Srinivasan 10/997,338 O’NEILL 103(a) Mark D. Sarallno Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2656; 3711 ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN EXAMINER GRAHAM, MARK S
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2301 Ex parte Clear With Computers, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,185 5,367,627 TURNER 102(b) Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER BAYERL, RAYMOND J
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Ikawa et al 10/377,799 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Hargett 10/249,011 GARRIS 103(a) SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
1796 Ex Parte CREWS et al 12/039,205 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, JOHN J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Shear 10/042,260 DESHPANDE 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
2185 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/002,560 DANG 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Hatin et al 11/225,558 SAADAT 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Imundo et al 09/853,945 CHEN 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E
[A]n admission of prior art can be relied upon for an obviousness determination, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 66 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . .706.02, 2129, 2141.01
3769 Ex Parte Knopp et al 10/124,891 CHEN 103(a)/judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
REHEARING
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10/860,803 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN
NEW
REVERSED
3753 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/487,330 STAICOVICI 103(a) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A
3744 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/074,682 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3765 Ex Parte Franke et al 10/954,656 SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL
3735 Ex Parte Guenst et al 10/804,391 SILVERBERG 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
AFFIRMED
1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1628 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/376,553 GREEN 103(a) Fox Rothschild, LLP EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
3652 Ex Parte Weiss 10/610,545 STAICOVICI 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte SHINOHARA 11/682,188 HANLON 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMERON, ERMA C
1733 Ex Parte Asahi et al 10/410,014 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(2) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Furthermore, a lack of antecedent basis is not per se a reason for finding a claim indefinite. “In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”’ Energizer Holdings Inc. v. International Trade Com’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 61 USPQ2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2173.05
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . 2173.05(e)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Freund et al 11/220,015 SILVERBERG 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU
3737 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/942,115 O’NEILL 103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Buchalter 11/237,438 FREDMAN 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Viviano 11/453,657 SAINDON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FLOYD B. CAROTHERS CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER CAJILIG, CHRISTINE T
Because a dependent claim includes all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends, the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 9 is obvious is also a conclusion that claim 1 is obvious for the same reasons. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”).
3637 Ex Parte Becke et al 10/816,371 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WILKENS, JANET MARIE
3663 Ex Parte Blaudin De The 10/583,626 BROWN 112(2)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Srinivasan 10/997,338 O’NEILL 103(a) Mark D. Sarallno Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2656; 3711 ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN EXAMINER GRAHAM, MARK S
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2301 Ex parte Clear With Computers, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,185 5,367,627 TURNER 102(b) Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER BAYERL, RAYMOND J
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Ikawa et al 10/377,799 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Hargett 10/249,011 GARRIS 103(a) SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
1796 Ex Parte CREWS et al 12/039,205 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, JOHN J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Shear 10/042,260 DESHPANDE 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
2185 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/002,560 DANG 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Hatin et al 11/225,558 SAADAT 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Imundo et al 09/853,945 CHEN 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E
[A]n admission of prior art can be relied upon for an obviousness determination, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 66 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . .706.02, 2129, 2141.01
3769 Ex Parte Knopp et al 10/124,891 CHEN 103(a)/judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
REHEARING
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10/860,803 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN
NEW
REVERSED
3753 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/487,330 STAICOVICI 103(a) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A
3744 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/074,682 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3765 Ex Parte Franke et al 10/954,656 SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL
3735 Ex Parte Guenst et al 10/804,391 SILVERBERG 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
AFFIRMED
1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1628 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/376,553 GREEN 103(a) Fox Rothschild, LLP EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
3652 Ex Parte Weiss 10/610,545 STAICOVICI 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)