basell, berg, eli lilly, graves, LeGrice, sasse, amgen2

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/08/2011 1623 Ex Parte Damien et al 10/920,297 FREDMAN 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN

“In determining double patenting, a one-way test is normally applied, in which "the examiner asks whether the application claims are obvious over the patent claims."” In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The two-way test “is a narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test.” Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. “The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is "solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first."” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n. 7 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2444 Ex Parte Obradovich et al 09/910,510 NAPPI 103(a) CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1627 Ex Parte Perc et al 10/531,540 FREDMAN 103(a) Cozen O''Connor EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/08/2011 1724 Ex Parte Mole 10/471,304 NAGUMO 103(a) HONEYWELL/HUSCH EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/08/2011 2491 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/160,984 BAUMEISTER 112(2)/102(e) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/11/2011 2826 Ex Parte Stephenson et al 10/120,814 ROBERTSON 102(e) Michael G. Fletcher Fletcher, Yoder & Van Someren EXAMINER WILLIAMS, ALEXANDER O

A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.” See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)).

Further, the Federal Circuit has instructed:

In patent prosecution the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681, 207 USPQ 107, 111 (C.C.P.A.1980) (“[W]hen the PTO cited a disclosure which expressly anticipated the present invention . . . the burden was shifted to the applicant. He had to rebut the presumption of the operability of [the prior art patent] by a preponderance of the evidence.”). The applicant, however, can then overcome that rejection by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled. Id.

Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnotes omitted).

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.07, 2121, 2121.02

DISMISSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1642 Ex Parte BERNDORFF et al 12/211,198 JORDAN abandoned MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10/335,056 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

07/12/2011 1643 Ex Parte ZHAO et al 12/422,863 JORDAN RCE MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

modine, pall corp

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/11/2011 2111 Ex Parte Barzaghi et al 10/006,583 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

07/08/2011 2128 Ex Parte Walacavage et al 09/966,121 DANG 102(e) Daniel H. Bliss Bliss McGlynn P.C. EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/11/2011 2437 Ex Parte Evans et al 10/178,804 NAPPI 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER ABYANEH, ALI S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3687 Ex Parte ZHANG 12/100,139 KIM 102(b) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd EXAMINER PARIKH, HARSHAD R
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/07/2011 1611 Ex Parte Uchida et al 11/731,595 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

However, “[s]uch broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm., 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

“The use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context…. It is appropriate to consider the effects of varying that parameter, for the inventor’s intended meaning is relevant.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/11/2011 1796 Ex Parte Chatterji et al 11/698,615 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/08/2011 3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11/455,371 KIM 102(b)/103(a) Perman & Green, LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
REHEARING

GRANTED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/08/2011 2186 Ex Parte Becker 10/975,760 LUCAS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3688 Ex Parte Robb et al 10/127,726 FETTING 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER VIG, NARESH

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/07/2011 3723 Ex Parte Fontana et al 10/990,926 HORNER 102(e) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUNG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/06/2011 3715 Ex Parte Dinger et al 10/737,060 CHEN 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HU, KANG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/08/2011 1619 Ex Parte Hofacker et al 11/732,576 WALSH 103(a) Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC EXAMINER GREENE, IVAN A

07/06/2011 1619 Ex Parte Waldmann et al 10/615,718 FREDMAN 102(b)/112(1) CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN EXAMINER BLANCHARD, DAVID J

07/08/2011 1627 Ex Parte Bergeron 11/036,130 McCOLLUM 112(1)/103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

07/07/2011 1635 Ex Parte Tsokos et al 10/772,704 SCHEINER 103(a) NASH & TITUS, LLC EXAMINER CHONG, KIMBERLY

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/06/2011 1759 Ex Parte Zhang-Beglinger et al 12/220,037 GUEST 103(a) John J. Piskorski Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials LLC EXAMINER WONG, EDNA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/08/2011 3679 Ex Parte Burke et al 10/332,296 HORNER 102(b) David A. Rose CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/08/2011 3725 Ex Parte Tussey 11/676,045 SPAHN 103(a) JOHN R. BENEFIEL EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY

moncla, broadcom, ventana, martek, arlington, curtiss-wright, Phillips, ngai, king

REVERSED

1735 Ex Parte Ozkan et al 11/410,267 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER POLYANSKY, ALEXANDER

2111 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/942,351 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2163 Ex Parte Feinberg 11/033,646 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

2187 Ex Parte Kallahalla et al 10/959,536 BARRY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

When all other rejections on appeal have been reversed, and the only remaining rejection is a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, it is premature to address the provisional rejection. Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1648 Ex Parte Wolff et al 11/828,272 GRIMES 102(b)/112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S

1731 Ex Parte Wanninger et al 10/058,832 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words of expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”). Substantive differences between the claims “can be a ‘useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.’” Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also, Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laim differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3623 Ex Parte Schroeder et al 10/302,406 KIM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

3654 Ex Parte Szentistvany 10/524,122 BARRETT 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3738 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/106,421 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
AFFIRMED

1736 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/582,593 GAUDETTE 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

2128 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 10/747,967 HUGHES 102(e)/102(b) RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP EXAMINER SILVER, DAVID

2617 Ex Parte Stephens 10/875,753 NAPPI 103(a) Thorpe North & Western LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

3761 Ex Parte Long et al 11/511,573 GREENHUT 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

First, Appellants are not entitled to patent a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See also, King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

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

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Fujimura et al 11/405,471 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Redmer et al 11/643,367 HORNER 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Laurikka et al 09/956,197 DANG 103(a) Perman & Green, LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART and DISMISSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3992 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/010,045 6,335,965 BOALICK 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG LLPEXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Sutton et al 11/731,421 McCOLLUM 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER THOMAS, TIMOTHY P

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Morgan 11/435,422 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER
AHMED, SHAMIM

1726 Ex Parte Kritzer et al 10/436,285 COLAIANNI 103(a) Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

1772 Ex Parte Beer 11/652,879 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1772 Ex Parte Dath et al 10/569,240 GAUDETTE 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC vEXAMINER BULLOCK, IN SUK C

1772 Ex Parte Dath et al 10/524,640 GAUDETTE 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER BULLOCK, IN SUK C

steele, boon, klosak, skoner

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kang et al 11/410,757 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1782 Ex Parte Jester et al 10/404,787 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 11/128,543 DILLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

2186 Ex Parte Ruckerbauer et al 11/011,466 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Gero McClellan / Qimonda EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Colasurdo et al 10/166,299 STEPHENS 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862-863 (CCPA 1962).

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

2452 Ex Parte Malik 10/165,831 STEPHENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER DOAN, DUYEN MY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte SHIMOE et al 11/457,356 COCKS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Diemunsch 11/038,359 KERINS Dissenting STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10/801,793 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 PlaSmart, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owners and Appellants 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 103(a) MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a) THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Eun et al 10/946,326 HANLON 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1746 Ex Parte Stadele 10/805,337 GUEST 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J

1775 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/458,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E

1785 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/297,792 GUEST 103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 09/883,817 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2168 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 11/362,488 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A

2179 Ex Parte Iwema et al 10/144,256 DANG 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

Our reviewing court has held that an adequate traverse to such a finding of official notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances
justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” MPEP § 2144.03(C). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, . . . the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art . . . .” Id.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Birks et al 10/386,152 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Spector 10/949,987 HAHN 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 09/932,842 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) Frank C. Nicholas Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY

2628 Ex Parte Billingsley et al 10/863,609 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hengsbach 10/454,333 OWENS 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 103(a) AUTOLIV ASP, INC Attn: Sally J. Brown ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

It is well settled that Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps et al 10/340,315 BARRETT 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Cronley
Ex Parte Dimitrova et al
Ex Parte Ferderer
Ex Parte Geerits et al
Ex Parte Grove et al
Ex Parte Luo
Ex Parte Mezo et al
Ex Parte Virji et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Hahnle et al
Ex Parte Kulkarni

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dooley et al
Ex Parte Fritz et al
Ex Parte Futamura et al
Ex Parte Gabrius et al
Ex Parte Goebel et al
Ex Parte Hagiya et al
Ex Parte King et al
Ex Parte Kok et al
Ex Parte Lais et al
Ex Parte Lloyd
Ex Parte Mandel et al
Ex Parte Postupack et al
Ex Parte Rauma et al

minerals, wands, bush, EMI, raytheon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P

3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W

3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Tantivy Communications, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner TESCO CORPORATION
95/001,113 7,048,050 SONG 102/103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester : BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLPEXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 90/008,990 6,151,332 TURNER 103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Sigler et al 11/155,180 SMITH Concurring PAK 102(b)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Whaley 11/127,049 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Docket Clerk Dallas TX EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Mastin Crosbie et al 09/793,355 MacDONALD 102(e) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Medendorp 11/708,818 DROESCH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CROWE, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Howell 11/634,454 HORNER 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3739 Ex Parte Prabhu et al 09/891,773 BAHR 102(e) Carestream Health, Inc. EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S

3748 Ex Parte Lifson 11/544,403 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

3774 Ex Parte Fariabi 10/750,079 HOELTER 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Trese et al 11/234,518 DELMENDO 101/112(1)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “When a claim itself recites incorrect science in one limitation, the entire claim is invalid, regardless of the combinations of the other limitations recited in the claim.” EMI, 268 F.3d at 1349.

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08
REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/429,507 GRIMES Technology Advancement Labs LLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
NEW

REVERSED

3684 Ex Parte Foy et al 11/226,463 DESHPANDE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

1765 Ex Parte Hulse et al 11/955,475 ROBERTSON 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1645 Ex Parte Miller 10/470,797 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

3691 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/169,501 CRAWFORD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ONYEZIA, CHUKS N

3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/388,162 FISCHETTI 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

3624 Ex Parte Santos et al 10/378,872 MOHANTY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

1621 Ex Parte STAUFFER 12/632,840 ADAMS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER PARSA, JAFAR F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2114 Ex Parte JOHANSSON et al 11/834,731 POTHIER 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

3749 Ex Parte Schnell et al 10/413,018 BROWN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D

2453 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/455,037 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

AFFIRMED

2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2178 Ex Parte Lu et al 10/668,399 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

3632 Ex Parte MATIAS 11/735,523 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PERRY + CURRIER INC. EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

2166 Ex Parte Raley et al 11/141,229 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2156 Ex Parte Recio et al 11/304,954 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

3774 Ex Parte Reed et al 11/252,169 HORNER 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

3715 Ex Parte Seelig et al 09/791,463 BROWN 102(e) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER MOSSER, KATHLEEN MICHELE

3644 Ex Parte Simoni 11/039,210 STAICOVICI 103(a) JACQUELYN R. SIMONI EXAMINER ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3667 Ex Parte Turgeon 10/086,793 LORIN 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

REHEARING

DENIED
2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

gardner2, dailey

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Argade et al 11/834,473 ADAMS 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP EXAMINER RAO, DEEPAK R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Forbes Jones et al 10/656,918 FRANKLIN 103(a) Patrick J. Viccaro, Esquire
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1787 Ex Parte Loretti et al 10/562,368 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER AHMED, SHEEBA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Martin et al 10/549,365 CHEN 102(e) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER
BROWN, SHEREE N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Storteig et al 10/869,466 ASTORINO 103(a) WesternGeco L.L.C. EXAMINER SWINEHART, EDWIN L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/022,665 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester, Appellant v. CROSS ATLANTIC CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC. Patent Owner, Cross-Appellant 95/001,070 6,519,629 SIU 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Third Party Requester DANIEL M. DEVOS EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte The Hall Patent Group, LLC. 90/007,233 6,422,413 LEE 103(a) WILLIAM A. HALL EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kumar Gidwani et al 10/272,812 WALSH 103(a) PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

1623 Ex Parte Kai et al 10/578,912 GRIMES 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Walters et al 10/324,725 KRATZ 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER
TALBOT, BRIAN K

1741 Ex Parte Recker et al 10/888,542 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

Further, it is also well established that where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 676 (CCPA 1966) (configuration of a claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent pervasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).

Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 2144.04

Dailey, In re, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
1764 Ex Parte Dairoku et al 11/353,238 SMITH 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1767 Ex Parte Ashbaugh et al 11/558,666 PRATS 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER KARST, DAVID THOMAS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Patrizio et al 10/767,524 WINSOR 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, EUNHEE

2171 Ex Parte Shafron et al 10/015,816 CHEN 103(a) YAHOO! INC. C/O GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER ROSWELL, MICHAEL

2184 Ex Parte Sand et al 11/097,799 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TSENG, CHENG YUAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Roelleke et al 10/511,969 McCARTHY 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER TO, TUAN C
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Sjoberg 10/477,141 FRANKLIN NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER SIMONE, CATHERINE A

NEW

REVERSED

1723 Ex Parte Colibaba-Evulet et al 10/745,356 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

2178 Ex Parte Griffin et al 11/080,444 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) RIM/FINNEGAN EXAMINER TSUI, WILSON W

2191 Ex Parte Liao et al 10/245,548 ROBERTSON 103(a) INTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER ZHEN, WEI Y

1732 Ex Parte Massidda et al 10/840,394 SMITH 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER HAILEY, PATRICIA L

1783 Ex Parte Numrich et al 10/172,017 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

3621 Ex Parte Padhye et al 10/162,699 LORIN 102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

1734 Ex Parte Sesing et al 11/816,045 SMITH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1765 Ex Parte Sosa et al 10/674,224 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M

1772 Ex Parte Wada et al 10/682,903 SMITH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2158 Ex Parte Beyer et al 10/788,556 THOMAS 112(2)/102(b) IBM_SVL EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A

2115 Ex Parte Naffziger 10/320,586 WINSOR 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CAO, CHUN

3627 Ex Parte Newton et al 11/269,226 LORIN 103(a) WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER
BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R

3695 Ex Parte Rebenack et al 10/421,996 LORIN 103(a) Qwest Communications International Inc. EXAMINER LIU, CHIA-YI

AFFIRMED

1634 Ex Parte Ballinger et al 10/176,055 McCOLLUM 103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC EXAMINER SALMON, KATHERINE D

2171 Ex Parte Bertram et al 10/281,803 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (SJO) EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

3767 Ex Parte Boyle et al 10/749,046 CHEN 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER
GILBERT, ANDREW M

1619 Ex Parte Daou et al 10/579,649 PRATS 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BLANCHARD, DAVID J

3626 Ex Parte Dvorak et al 10/052,659 LORIN 103(a) Epic Systems Corporation c/o Quarles & Brady LLP EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

3682 Ex Parte Harris 09/760,271 MOHANTY 102(b) HENNEMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

1785 Ex Parte Sharma Manish 11/285,851 OWENS 102(a)(b)(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BERNATZ, KEVIN M

1771 Ex Parte Marion et al 10/398,239 PAK 103(a) Millen White Zelano & Branigan EXAMINER
SINGH, PREM C

1715 Ex Parte Mikhael et al 11/137,823 SMITH 103(a) ANTONIO R. DURANDO EXAMINER LIN, JAMES

2161 Ex Parte Sykes 10/160,922 DESHPANDE 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

fallaux, richardson-vicks, bayer4

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Boehm 12/026,567 ADAMS 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Yadav et al 11/808,766 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER YOON, TAE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Buda et al 10/359,218 KRIVAK 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER HAILE, FEBEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chamberlain et al 11/349,019 CLARKE 103(a) W. ALLEN MARCONTELL EXAMINER RAMSEY, JEREMY C

3641 Ex Parte Rednikov 10/544,358 SPAHN 102(b) Valeriy Rednikov EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P

3665 Ex Parte Dwyer et al 11/112,796 O’NEILL 103(a) HONEYWELL/IFL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3682 Ex Parte Koether et al 11/156,862 CRAWFORD 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Koch 10/477,301 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kostansek et al 11/131,615 McCOLLUM 103(a) CHUI, MEI PING ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER CHUI, MEI PING

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Lester et al 11/197,010 RUGGIERO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Hasse 10/987,654 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) NGUYEN, CHI Q Hasse & Nesbitt LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte MacDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS, LLC Appellant 90/008,004 6,966,259 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JOHN L. CORDANI CARMODY & TORRANCE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL S. MARCUS, ESQ. DICKSTEIN SHARPIRO LLP EXAMINER PEIKARI, BEHZAD
REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Goode 10/345,836 6,173,769 BAHR 251 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP EXAMINER BATES, ZAKIYA W
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hong 10/038,312 LUCAS 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, TING ZHOU

1618 Ex Parte Bolle et al 10/515,698 SCHEINER 103(a)/nonstatutory double patenting NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

Nevertheless, as the Examiner correctly points out, the fact “[t]hat both applications share a common filing date is not a grounds for withdrawing a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection” (Ans. 9). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c)(3). Even if patents granted on the two applications were set to expire on the same date, unjustified timewise extension is not the only concern addressed by the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. “[T]here is a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting - harassment by multiple assignees.” In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1319, (Fed. Cir. 2009).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Li et al 11/690,713 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1796 Ex Parte Gronsveld et al 11/041,554 WALSH 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Tanner 11/120,027 FREDMAN 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L

2173 Ex Parte Ubillos 11/652,277 DESHPANDE 102(e) APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2196 Ex Parte Kataoka 10/632,178 MACDONALD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CAO, DIEM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Jordan 10/337,137 GONSALVES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - PIP Law LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Jordan et al 11/372,312 GREENHUT 103(a) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Polesuk 10/072,528 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Philip M. Weiss, Esq. Weiss & Weiss EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

The ultimate determination of whether an invention is obvious is a legal question based on the totality of the evidence. Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . 716.01(d)
3782 Ex Parte Chertkow et al 11/063,058 HOELTER 103(a)/112(1) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F

Further, Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) provides that it is obvious to try a compound from a finite and easily traversed number of options that were narrowed down from a larger set of possibilities by the prior art.

REHEARING

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Bedoukian 10/949,129 PRATS 103(a) George W. Rauchfuss, Jr. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P

NEW

REVERSED

2183 Ex Parte Alsup et al 10/726,902 HUGHES 103(a) MHKKG / GLOBALFOUNDRIES EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2442 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/690,125 GONSALVES 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3621 Ex Parte Burkholder 11/437,111 FISCHETTI 103(a) TI Law Group EXAMINER OBEID, MAMON A

1763 Ex Parte Durrant 11/188,066 MILLS 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2443 Ex Parte Henrie 11/546,488 POTHIER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

3716 Ex Parte Leen et al 11/335,210 BARRETT 103(a) CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED

2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,582 ZECHER 102(e) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

1616 Ex Parte Edwards et al 11/523,914 WALSH 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting Elmore Patent Law Group EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA


1626 Ex Parte Fischer et al 11/789,737 ADAMS 103(a) BASF Corporation EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE

2179 Ex Parte Fu 10/644,948 POTHIER 112(2)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

1628 Ex Parte Holen et al 11/169,512 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

2628 Ex Parte Kujawa et al 11/132,124 RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E

3716 Ex Parte Leen et al 11/335,253 BARRETT obviousness-type double patenting/101/103(a) CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

1772 Ex Parte Suganuma et al 10/138,559 PAK 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

3724 Ex Parte Sussmeier et al 11/286,036 MOHANTY 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

2448 Ex Parte Uliano et al 10/113,544 GONSALVES 112(1)/103(a) Thomas & Karceski, P.C. EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

DISMISSED

3684 Ex Parte Pullman 10/159,344 Shaw RCE Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

2629 Ex Parte Simon 11/306,229 SHAW RCE Vedder Price PC EXAMINER BOYD, JONATHAN A