kohler, mills, bozek, boe

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/27/2011 1612 Ex Parte Peyton et al 11/220,159 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C

07/26/2011 1615 Ex Parte Fuchs et al 10/312,077 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/26/2011 1771 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/815,276 TIMM 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Stephens et al 10/860,343 BAUMEISTER 103(a) COOL PATENT, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/26/2011 2827 Ex Parte Riedel et al 11/220,872 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) EITAN MEHULAL LAW GROUP EXAMINER HO, HOAI V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/26/2011 3721 Ex Parte Milliman 11/728,698 O’NEILL 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP /b/a Covidien EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/26/2011 1798 Ex Parte O'DONNELL 10/522,191 OWENS 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY EXAMINER GRAY, JILL M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/27/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kingsbury et al 11/426,144 WINSOR 101/102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER OBERLY, VAN HONG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/26/2011 2431 Ex Parte Hars 10/540,185 JEFFERY 102(e) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER AVERY, JEREMIAH L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/26/2011 3748 Ex Parte Sun 11/386,306 SPAHN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DAVIS, MARY ALICE

07/27/2011 3769 Ex Parte Shanks et al McCARTHY 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) ETHERTON LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON III, HENRY M
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/26/2011 1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).

07/26/2011 1747 Ex Parte Sandstrom 11/046,479 HASTINGS 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

07/26/2011 1765 Ex Parte Butler et al 10/966,969 HASTINGS 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER TISCHLER, FRANCES

07/26/2011 1787 Ex Parte Younes et al 11/893,447 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER FREEMAN, JOHN D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/26/2011 2163 Ex Parte Bohmer et al 10/792,912 COURTENAY 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HO, BINH VAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/26/2011 2448 Ex Parte Pineau et al 09/842,754 DROESCH 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/26/2011 2874 Ex Parte Spillane et al 11/158,660 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RAHLL, JERRY T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/27/2011 3635 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/265,498 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PLUMMER, ELIZABETH A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/26/2011 3715 Ex Parte Feygin et al 10/806,531 ASTORINO 103(a) DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER HU, KANG

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

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

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.

perfect web

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Dudley et al 10/914,692 COURTENAY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baer et al 10/392,758 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V
REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 2824 Ex parte Seed Layers Technology, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,846 6,136,707 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: FORTKORT & HOUSTON P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WITHROW & TERRANOVA P.L.L.C. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PYONIN, ADAM

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1723 Ex Parte Koll 11/157,993 GUEST 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Mirchandani et al 10/848,437 GARRIS 102(a)/103(a) TraskBritt/BHI-ATI EXAMINER CHRISTIE, ROSS J

07/22/2011 1781 Ex Parte Kwitek 11/249,466 MILLS 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER WATTS, JENNA A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3764 Ex Parte Geibel et al 11/041,860 KAUFFMAN 103(a) BLYNN L. SHIDELER THE BLK LAW GROUP EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“while an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence … it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference”).

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/20/2011 1613 Ex Parte Artisa et al 10/923,000 McCOLLUM 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/21/2011 1761 Ex Parte Noecker et al 12/056,100 FRANKLIN 102(a)/103(a) LONDA, BRUCE S. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA EXAMINER ELHILO, EISA B

07/20/2011 1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST 103(a)/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/21/2011 2834 Ex Parte Telep et al 11/245,340 DILLON 102(b) WARN, HOFFMANN, MILLER & OZGA, P.C. EXAMINER DESAI, NAISHADH N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/20/2011 3773 Ex Parte Evans et al 10/633,254 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Rutan & Tucker, LLP. EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/20/2011 2827 Ex Parte BALASURAMANIAN 11/309,174 MANTIS MERCADER 112(2)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER MAI, SON LUU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/20/2011 3732 Ex Parte Conrad et al 11/429,927 SAINDON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K

07/20/2011 3741 Ex Parte Slovisky et al 10/931,502 SAINDON 103(a) HONEYWELL/IFL EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANDREW H

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/20/2011 1716 Ex Parte WHITE et al 11/776,980 GARRIS 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER FORD, NATHAN K

07/20/2011 1774 Ex Parte Foster 10/361,116 HASTINGS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER LEUNG, JENNIFER A

07/20/2011 1767 Ex Parte Havens et al 11/016,835 TIMM 103(a) Howard Troffkin EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/20/2011 2186 Ex Parte Andruszkiewicz et al 11/041,842 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2443 Ex Parte Anonsen et al 10/201,544 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

07/20/2011 2452 Ex Parte Madhavan 10/635,741 COURTENAY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/20/2011 2833 Ex Parte Gore 10/947,693 POTHIER 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

REHEARING DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2163 Ex Parte Cochran 11/702,509 DANG 102(a)/103(a) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

diamond1, comiskey, bilski, rice, gutta, exxon research, miller,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/19/2011 1627 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/724,095 WALSH 103(a) Kevin D. Erickson Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3623 Ex Parte TEMPLETON 09/416,278 PETRAVICK 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PETERS VERNY , L.L.P. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (S. Ct. 1981); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (declining to reach an obviousness rejection on appeal after concluding many claims were non-statutory under § 101); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 n.1 (noting that § 101 is a threshold requirement and that the Examiner may reject claims solely on that basis); In re Rice, 132 F.2d 140, 141 (CCPA 1942) (finding it unnecessary to reach rejection based on prior art after concluding claims were directed to nonstatutory subject matter); Ex Parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1036 (BPAI 2009) (per curiam) (expanded panel) (precedential) (as the claims on appeal do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, the prior art rejections need not be considered).

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

07/19/2011 3624 Ex Parte Troyer et al 10/652,139 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products &1amp; Design
07/19/2011 3764 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 10/040,575 CALVE 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2172 Ex Parte Beltran et al 10/781,307 DANG 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

07/19/2011 2174 Ex Parte Law et al 10/830,926 DANG 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER KE, PENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/20/2011 3652 Ex Parte Gifford et al 10/908,594 COCKS 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I

A claim is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2001). Breadth in scope does not equal indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971).

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/20/2011 1643 Ex Parte King et al 10/731,759 MILLS 103(a) COZEN O'CONNOR, P.C. EXAMINER SANG, HONG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/20/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schryver 10/778,366 FRANKLIN 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/20/2011 2168 Ex Parte Needham et al 10/880,301 CHEN 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2600 Communications
07/19/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/744,879 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER TUCKER, WESLEY J

symbol tech., beckman, festo, lockwood

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1618 Ex Parte Inosaka et al 11/113,969 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/16/2011 1724 Ex Parte Peragine et al 10/519,691 OWENS 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2173 Ex Parte Ackley 10/960,385 DILLON 102(b) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2816 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/286,562 KRIVAK 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

07/19/2011 2823 Ex Parte Shiraiwa et al 11/469,164 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3654 Ex Parte Fargo et al 10/564,873 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Newman et al 10/842,788 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

07/18/2011 3761 Ex Parte Ellingboe et al 11/333,671 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3685 Ex Parte Koppen et al 10/868,299 MOHANTY 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3714 BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. IGT Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,277 6,431,983 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER ROBERT L. KOVELMAN STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER WHITE, CARMEN D

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3749 TECPHARMA LICENSING AG Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of NOVO NORDISK A/S Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,288 6,547,764 SONG 103(a) cc Patent Owner: Marc A. Began, Esq. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cc Third Party Requester: Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLPEXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN

In particular, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purposed of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Techs. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, "[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989).

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01

Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . 2121.01
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1616 Ex Parte Volgas et al 09/916,611 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

07/18/2011 1628 Ex Parte Meythaler 10/885,175 FREDMAN 103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/18/2011 1767 Ex Parte Dallavia 11/701,217 WALSH 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2624 Ex Parte Albertelli et al 11/685,338 KRIVAK 101 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER SETH, MANAV

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3682 Ex Parte Minifie et al 11/352,895 LORIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). Here the claimed “kit” is not the same as the co-package disclosed in the specification. At best, the disclosed co-package renders the “kit” obvious. But “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) . . 1302.14, 2173.02

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Toida 10/853,116 O’NEILL 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2857 Ex Parte Moessner et al 11/021,591 JEFFERY 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L

See Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7,162, 7,168 (Feb. 9, 2011) (noting that Examiners should not construe means-plus-function limitations as covering pure software implementations when the supporting disclosure discusses implementing the invention via hardware and software).

tokai, ormco

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2836 Ex Parte Henderson 10/925,759 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/15/2011 3628 Ex Parte Bowman et al 10/998,834 MOHANTY 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SALIARD, SHANNON S

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/15/2011 3992 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Third party Requester: Bruce K. Lagerman LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H

Under these circumstances, any commercial success stems from what was known in the prior art so that there can be no nexus. Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial
success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.”).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/15/2011 3991 Ex parte PFIZER, INC. Appellant 90/008,751 6,846,477 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PFIZER, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MERIAL LIMITED EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/15/2011 1727 Ex Parte Sienkowski et al 11/764,074 TIMM 102(e)/103(a)/provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2618 Ex Parte Kinoshita 10/225,289 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2821 Ex Parte Gibboney 11/269,994 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) NEXSEN PRUET, LLC EXAMINER VU, JIMMY T

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2821 Ex Parte Malone 11/231,484 KRIVAK 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER WIMER, MICHAEL C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/15/2011 3664 Ex Parte Jensfelt 11/312,211 HORNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER
PECHE, JORGE O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/15/2011 1763 Ex Parte de Buzzaccarini et al 11/799,800 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/14/2011 1618 Ex Parte Buiser et al 10/830,195 WALSH 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, LEAH H

07/14/2011 1628 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/208,404 FREDMAN 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FLYNN, THIEL, BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER HUI, SAN MING R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/14/2011 1725 Ex Parte Konishiike et al 11/039,321 GARRIS 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN

07/14/2011 1763 Ex Parte Knebel et al 11/587,389 FRANKLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WANG, CHUN CHENG

07/14/2011 1763 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/334,987 MILLS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

07/15/2011 1783 Ex Parte Baig 11/267,125 GARRIS 103(a) Pearne & Gordon LLP EXAMINER WATKINS III, WILLIAM P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/14/2011 2159 Ex Parte Ahrens et al 11/432,067 MORGAN 103(a) OSHA LIANG LLP/Oracle EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/15/2011 2452 Ex Parte Cornelius et al 09/945,188 MacDONALD 112(2)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(1) ACCENTURE CHICAGO 28164 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/14/2011 3617 Ex Parte Brockway 11/328,391 CALVE 103(a) ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (ZPS) EXAMINER KOTTER, KIP T

07/14/2011 3628 Ex Parte van Rijn 10/909,247 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N

07/14/2011 3628 Ex Parte van Rijn 11/143,972 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N

07/14/2011 3628 Ex Parte van Rijn 11/145,505 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/14/2011 3782 Ex Parte Ausnit et al 11/333,425 BAHR 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F

syntex

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/14/2011 3686 Ex Parte Jacobus et al 11/141,430 PETRAVICK 103(a) John G. Posa Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, HIEP VAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/13/2011 1789 Ex Parte Joseph et al 11/062,162 MILLS 103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP EXAMINER GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/13/2011 1619 Ex Parte Morelli et al 10/680,703 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

“A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear
discouragement of that combination.” Syntex (USA) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations deleted).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/13/2011 2172 Ex Parte Edwards et al 10/973,123 HOMERE 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

07/14/2011 2177 Ex Parte Sherman 10/951,313 DANG 102(e) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER PAULA, CESAR B

2600 Communications
07/14/2011 2617 Ex Parte Ishihara et al 10/333,393 GONSALVES 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER SAMS, MATTHEW C

07/13/2011 2627 Ex Parte Rumpf et al 09/854,393 BAUMEISTER 103(a) WPAT, PC EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L

07/13/2011 2628 Ex Parte Madden et al 11/166,975 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) Nixon Peabody LLP EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/14/2011 3624 Ex Parte Macy et al 10/905,254 FETTING 101/102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER SANTIAGO, LUIS F

07/13/2011 3625 Ex Parte Allocca et al 11/555,958 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) FENWICK & WEST LLP EXAMINER AIRAPETIAN, MILA

herz, PPG, de lajarte, hoffman, finisar

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/12/2011 2854 Ex Parte Petermann 10/733,484 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER FERGUSON SAMRETH, MARISSA LIANA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/12/2011 3657 Ex Parte Davison et al 11/166,388 HORNER 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/12/2011 3767 Ex Parte Dolliver et al 10/787,849 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/12/2011 1617 Ex Parte Martin 11/914,485 GREEN 103(a) FMC CORPORATION EXAMINER BUCKLEY, AUDREA

The “phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ limits the scope of a claim to the specified ingredients and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a composition.” In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis added); see also PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir 1998). Appellant bears the burden of establishing that the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention would be materially affected by, or at least reasonably expected to be materially affected by, any component or step of an applied reference that is argued to be excluded by a “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase used in the claims. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/13/2011 3993 Ex parte BioCybernetics International, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,605 6,213,968 LANE 103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Cf. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 2011 WL 2307402 at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2011) (holding, based on expert testimony, that prior apparatuses taught away from the claimed apparatus because they improved a certain parameter in a different way).
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/13/2011 1761 Ex Parte Brooker et al 11/329,008 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/13/2011 2123 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11/235,344 ZECHER 101/102(b) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

See Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc. 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“For computer-implemented means-plus-function claims where the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to implement an algorithm, "the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm") (citations and quotation marks omitted.). As such, the application must disclose “enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6” or a disclosure that can be expressed in any understandable terms (e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart). Id. But “[s]imply reciting "software" without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function is not enough.” Id. at 1341-42 (citation omitted).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/13/2011 3743 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/451,340 O’NEILL 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING
REHEARING

GRANTED - REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/13/2011 1645 Ex Parte Degelaen et al 10/170,343 GREEN 103(a) Butzel Long EXAMINER ZEMAN, ROBERT A

antonie, kyocera, epstein, eli lilly

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Maschmeyer et al 10/490,028 GREEN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER OH, TAYLOR V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Loose et al 09/821,195 O’NEILL 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E

For an obviousness rejection to be maintained, the combination of elements selected from each reference in combination must represent the claimed invention as a whole. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 619 (CCPA 1977) (“Just as we look to a chemical and its properties when we examine the obviousness of a composition of matter claim, it is this invention as a whole, and not some part of it, which must be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”) (emphasis original).

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05

3753 Ex Parte Hoshi et al 09/893,522 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

3766 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/958,210 O’NEILL 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kitsukawa 09/802,635 KOHUT 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Koerner et al 10/777,257 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, NIHIR B

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/165,386 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER GOFMAN, ALEX N

2179 Ex Parte Lauterbach et al 10/676,364 COURTENAY 102(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

Cf. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed Cir. 2008) (“The record evidence suggests that the GSM standard is not a single reference. The different specifications that comprise the GSM standard were authored by different subsets of authors at different times. Indeed, the GSM standard includes hundreds of individual specifications drafted by approximately ten different subgroups, each with its own title and separate page numbering. Each specification, though part of the greater GSM standard, stands as a separate document in its own right. Even Qualcomm's witness-admittedly one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about the operation of GSM-testified that she had not read the entire standard and did not know of any person who had read the entire standard. Open Session Tr. 1712, Mar. 15, 2006. Under these circumstances, the GSM standard is actually several prior art references with separate dates of creation, rather than a single prior art reference.”).

...

The Examiner also cites In re Epstein, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994). (See Ans. 11). In Epstein, our reviewing court determined that the Board did not err in determining that various third-party software products were “in public use or on sale” more than one year before Applicant’s filing date based upon abstracts which indicated when the products were “first installed” or “released” more than one year prior to Applicant’s filing date.

...

Under this approach to establishing anticipation, the multiple references are not separate anticipatory references; rather, it is the single device that anticipates a claim if the multiple references (or other evidence) establish that the single device had all the claimed features and was in public use or was offered for sale “more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” (Id.).

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 716.07, 2128, 2133.03(b)
2185 Ex Parte Farrell 11/218,994 HOMERE 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) EXAMINER DINH, NGOC V

2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/798,962 HUGHES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BRADLEY, MATTHEW A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Fang 09/962,861 NAPPI 102(e) KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M

2451 Ex Parte He 10/222,059 NAPPI 103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras, LLP Attn: John C. Gorecki EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Cheung et al 12/000,644 CALVE 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10/449,312 McCARTHY 102(b)/non-statutory double patenting PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, RALPH A

From a general perspective, the Examiner’s duty in rejecting a claim for obviousness-type double patenting is the same as a Court’s duty when holding a claim invalid on the same ground:

Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps. First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the differences. Second, the court determines whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type double patenting. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citations and footnote omitted).

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

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Asare et al 10/726,192 BARRY 102(b)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN