ruschig, fressola

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Meeuwssen et al 10/490,006 OWENS 103(a) GERSTENZANG, WILLIAM C. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA EXAMINER MUI, CHRISTINE T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Baijens et al 10/515,620 SAINDON 102(b) Robert P Seitter RatnerPrestia EXAMINER HSIAO, JAMES K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Oestreicher 11/047,295 CLARKE 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M

3721 Ex Parte Engelfried 11/242,345 GREENHUT 102 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Simon et al 09/792,502 RUGGIERO 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER HA, DAC V
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Namburi et al 10/617,350 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Glaxo Smith Kline c/o The Nath Law Group EXAMINER ANDERSON, JAMES D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Hagan et al 11/037,698 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) Roy W. Truelson EXAMINER FALASCO, LOUIS V

1789 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 10/889,481 OWENS 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Albert et al 11/052,207 THOMAS 101/103(A) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Gimson 10/106,466 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Mazzara et al 10/940,531 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(1)/103(a) General Motors Corporation EXAMINER LAM, DUNG LE

The Specification must contain some guideposts, akin to “blaze marks” on trees that mark a trail that would establish the claimed invention “as something appellants actually invented.” In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (CCPA 1967).

Ruschig, In re, 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Ferris 10/895,098 MILLS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER

3711 Ex Parte TACKETT 11/748,360 GREENHUT 112(2)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2)/112(4) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

Mere reference to a specific figure does not render the claim an omnibus-type claim, nor indefinite, as the Examiner suggests. Ans. 5. Compare Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (BPAI 1993) (affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph of a claim reciting a system “as disclosed in the specification and drawings herein”) with Ex parte Squires, 133 USPQ 598 (BPAI 1961) (reversing a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph of a claim reciting a font “as shown in Fig. 1”).

Fressola, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . .2173.05(r), 2173.05(s)
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Hilgendorff et al 11/564,494 GARRIS 103 BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

W.L. Gore, continental can

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Gladman et al 11/427,899 GREEN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/151,709 PAK 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHANG, RACHEL L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11/084,621 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, LOAN T

2186 Ex Parte Jones et al 11/066,038 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Berg et al 11/047,000 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH

A rejection founded in anticipation cannot be predicated on conjecture as to how the allegedly anticipating structure is constructed and arranged. W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation of inventions set forth in product claims cannot be predicated on mere conjecture respecting the characteristics of products that might result from the practice of processes disclosed in references.”) Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.”)

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . .2131.01
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Atkin et al 10/388,096 DANG 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER PATEL, MANGLESH M
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Chen 11/327,232 FREDMAN 103(a) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K

1643 Ex Parte Gorlach 11/221,252 FREDMAN 102(b) Jane Massey Licata Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hofmann et al 10/714,800 OWENS 112(2)/103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

1742 Ex Parte Chevillard et al 10/766,672 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

1761 Ex Parte CANO et al 11/960,329 SCHEINER 103(a) Shell Oil Company EXAMINER ADMASU, ATNAF S

1763 Ex Parte Finch et al 11/515,112 GREEN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Booth et al 10/272,588 BARRY 103(a) Duke Yee Yee Assoicates PC EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,597 ZECHER 103(a) IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Frankel et al 11/259,717 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER TRAN, PHUC H

marzocchi, langer, W.L. Gore

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Borgers et al 12/108,262 GRIMES 103(a) Glaxo Smith Kline c/o The Nath Law Group EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

However, the Specification’s disclosure is presumed to be accurate, and the burden is on the Examiner to provide evidence that it is not. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (“[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”); In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391 (CCPA 1974) (“[A] specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope.”).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03, 2124
1641 Ex Parte Gjerde 12/004,726 WALSH 103(a) PHYNEXUS, INC. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/852,927 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1715 Ex Parte Hass et al 10/489,090 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1713 Ex Parte Shatwell 10/504,204 PAK 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER TRAN, BINH X

See also, W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention . . ., when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.”).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Swank 10/990,891 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3679 Ex Parte Jamison et al 11/256,596 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Alholm et al 11/510,320 LEBOVITZ 102(b) TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP EXAMINER HAYMAN, IMANI N

3773 Ex Parte Miles et al 10/186,307 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/472,556 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Gilmour et al 10/135,254 LUCAS Concurring-In-Part THOMAS 101/103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, CAM Y T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Vernon 11/180,796 KIM 102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3635 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/773,757 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) JERRY TURNER SEWELL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102/103 M. P. Williams EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

fallaux

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bloom et al 10/987,346 DESHPANDE 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 10/132,639 MacDONALD 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Liang 11/304,325 BAHR 103(a) WEI TE CHUNG FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER CHIN, PAUL T
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Stomp et al 10/677,441 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER ZHENG, LI

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant’s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities. Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER LAM, ANN Y

comaper, clay, wyers, PPG, borkowski2, hammack, zurko

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/581,000 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1735 Ex Parte FOODY, Sr. 11/769,850 GAUDETTE 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1776 Ex Parte KEE et al 11/834,803 GAUDETTE 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Caruba et al 11/165,937 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REEXAMINATION

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

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6428542 et al 95/000,446 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 95/000,451 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C.EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “is essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of claim language.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The “purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

PPG Ind. v. Guardian Ind., 75 F.3d 1558, 37 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . 2164.06(b)

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/757,775 FREDMAN 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1655 Ex Parte Bortlik et al 10/568,704 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mazur et al 11/104,120 GAUDETTE 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/385,897 BARRY 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11/057,815 KIM 103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A
DISMISSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 10/572,655 VIGNONE RCE Thomas Langer Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane EXAMINER LAM, CATHY N

dunn, animal

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Daniels et al 11/244,467 MOHANTY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Zeng 11/473,794 HANLON 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WANG, CHUN CHENG

Third, the Examiner explains that the comparative data contains a number of unfixed variables and “without the identities and amounts of the components being held constant systematically, the probative value of appellants’ evidence of nonobviousness is limited.” Ans. 8-9; In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439 (CCPA 1965) (cause and effect sought to be proven is lost in the welter of unfixed variables).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.02

1765 Ex Parte Coffin et al 11/425,208 GARRIS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER MOORE, MARGARET G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Litwin 10/567,717 JEFFERY 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, QUANG N

See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The use of a negative limitation to define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is a permissible form of expression.”) (citation omitted).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Koch 10/457,882 KIM 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER ZARE, SCOTT A

herz

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Andersson 11/261,177 DILLON obviousness-type double patenting/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Bernard et al 11/222,688 SAINDON 102(b) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER WOOD, KIMBERLY T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/631,068 KAUFFMAN 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER UTAMA, ROBERT J

3754 Ex Parte Garcia et al 10/525,224 SAINDON 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER NGO, LIEN M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Student et al 11/554,705 SCHEINER 102(a,e)/102(b)/103(a) MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC.-Quartz c/o DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA

“[C]laims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . [A]n applicant who has not clearly limited his claims is in a weak position to assert a narrow construction. Therefore, in construing the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ in appellants’ claims, it is necessary and proper to determine whether their specification reasonably supports a construction that would include additives such as [those in the prior art].” In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551 (CCPA 1976).

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Young 10/315,562 BARRY 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11/116,553 DESHPANDE 103(a) SMITH FROHWEIN TEMPEL GREENLEE BLAHA LLC EXAMINER RIAD, AMINE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Galai et al 10/483,997 LORIN 112(1)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER COLBERT, ELLA

schumer, spectralytics

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Meerdink et al 10/582,280 FREDMAN 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER COVINGTON, RAYMOND K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/188,383 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER PEARSON, DAVID J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Bean et al 10/786,164 O’NEILL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3663 Ex Parte Hubner et al 11/138,236 O’NEILL 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

3689 Ex Parte Iobst et al 10/254,417 CRAWFORD 112(1)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Ennis 12/323,709 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) MATTINGLY & MALUR, PC EXAMINER SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

The body of claim 1 describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).

3761 Ex Parte Hjorth et al 10/458,651 GREENHUT 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Rohwedder et al 10/970,900 ZECHER 101/102(b) Silicon Valley Patent Group LLP Attn: OMKAR - ORACLE EXAMINER CHEEMA, AZAM M

2167 Ex Parte Brendle et al 10/747,033 HUGHES 102(e) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2183 Ex Parte Bradford et al 11/246,820 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Hickson et al 10/016,906 SMITH 102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER WALSH, JOHN B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Lamstein 11/022,198 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER POLLICOFF, STEVEN B

AFFIRMED

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Luxton 10/649,778 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER SING, SIMON P

See Spectralytics, Inc. v Cordis Corp., 99 USPQ2d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is indeed of interest if the prior art warned against the very modification made by the patentee, but it is not the sole basis on which a trier of fact could find that the prior art led away from the direction taken by the patentee. Instead, the jury could find, based on the expert testimony, that prior Swiss-style machines taught away from embracing vibrations to improve cutting accuracy because all prior machines improved accuracy by dampening vibrations [footnote omitted].”).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Karpov et al 11/272,208 NAPPI 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, LONG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Stewart et al 10/221,011 KIM 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, GREGORY L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Holz et al 11/337,759 LEBOVITZ 103(a) The Gillette Company EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F
REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Kenny 11/134,011 McCARTHY 101/112(1) Bernard S. Hoffman EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

DISMISSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Sakamoto et al 11/723,822 SHAW RCE EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

lantech, robertson, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Weber 10/928,999 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Lee 11/025,123 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C. EXAMINER RAYMOND, BRITTANY L

1742 Ex Parte Funaoka et al 10/973,392 WARREN 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1767 Ex Parte Herbiet et al 11/573,581 SCHEINER 103(a) ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11/223,898 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

When a claim requires two separate elements, mapping one disclosed element to both recited elements is improper. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
2187 Ex Parte Kreuchauf et al 10/911,319 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Larson 10/449,025 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11/337,783 SAADAT 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER HUR, JUNG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,124 HOFF 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3677 Ex Parte Tolan et al 10/688,032 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

3679 Ex Parte Maciag 10/839,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Zwilling et al 10/833,541 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LY, ANH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Burak et al 10/400,239 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3736 Ex Parte Ehrenberger et al 11/002,955 BAHR 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

These vague statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, 2011 WL 2937946, at *7
(Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants have waived any argument for separate patentability of these dependent claims. See id.

3753 Ex Parte Schafer et al 10/697,376 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6830358 et al FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC. and HOLIDAY CREATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. SEASONAL SPECIALTIES, LLC Requestor 95/000,137 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a)/305 Liniak Berenato Longacre & White Third Party Requester: Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, PA Attn: Bradley J. Thorson, Esq. EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER HUSAR, STEPHEN F
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Birke et al 11/352,845 COLAIANNI 102(b) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1761 Ex Parte Morgan 11/506,064 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

1771 Ex Parte Koshima et al 10/515,822 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLOBOY, JAMES C

The Appellants do note that Tipton “fails to disclose or suggest the more specific succinimide compounds/compositions encompassed by claims 2, 3, 9 and 11.” App. Br. 7. However, this general assertion does not constitute a separate argument under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011)

1781 Ex Parte Skjervold et al 10/276,065 PAK 103(a)/112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

1792 Ex Parte Nihei et al 11/063,572 PAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,470 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Sablak et al 10/306,509 KRIVAK 103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Furry 11/298,862 KOHUT 112(1)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Stumvoll et al 10/027,625 GRIMES 103 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

bush

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Suda et al 10/540,632 WALSH 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Kannan et al 10/525,797 FRANKLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1726 Ex Parte Schwab 10/578,461 COLAIANNI 102(b) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1735 Ex Parte Matsumoto et al 11/325,529 KRATZ 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1778 Ex Parte Grangeon et al 10/451,532 OWENS 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

1778 Ex Parte Nakashima 11/090,081 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JOHN K. CORBIN EXAMINER
REIFSNYDER, DAVID A

1781 Ex Parte Wilkey 10/369,363 PAK 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1781 Ex Parte Bartkowska et al 10/664,101 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1785 Ex Parte Hino et al 10/477,917 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

1792 Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 10/456,733 KRATZ 103(a) ABEL LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMIENR TALBOT, BRIAN K

1796 Ex Parte Zaschke et al 10/507,315 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Adler et al 10/095,797 WINSOR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER
TRAN, QUOC A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Southern et al 10/034,446 PATE III 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - NEW YORK EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3644 Ex Parte Grauzer et al 10/998,048 PATE III 112(2)/112(1) Dickinson Wright PLLC James E. Ledbetter, Esq. EXAMINER SANDERSON, JOSEPH W

3644 Ex Parte Senter et al 11/233,558 ASTORINO 103(a) Setter Roche LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Haas 09/967,500 PATE III 102(b) Mark A Litman and Associates, P.A. EXAMINER VO, PETER DUNG BA

3733 Ex Parte Teitelbaum 10/688,135 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY

3767 Ex Parte Woehr et al 11/497,188 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, BHISMA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Jaspers et al 11/547,098 PRATS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Pitt et al 10/471,309 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Bergman et al 10/993,377 DANG 102(b)/103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Gabara et al 10/668,544 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER CASCA, FRED A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Hamakita et al 10/796,301 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER SCHARICH, MARC A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Janesky 10/978,643 SPAHN 103(a) Thomas L. Tully PERMAN AND GREEN EXAMINER DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[W]here a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).

3716 Ex Parte Locke 10/140,601 BARRETT 101/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3721 Ex Parte Wild et al 11/121,546 PATE III 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2851 Ex Parte 6454472B1 et al Ex parte SEMES COMPANY, LTD. Appellant 90/008,321 CHEN 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MARTIN M. ZOLTICK ROTHWELL FIGG ERNST & MANBECK P.C.EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER RUTLEDGE, DELLA J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Di Salvo et al 11/554,214 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER HEYER, DENNIS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/011,596 PAK 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LIN, JAMES

1778 Ex Parte Rieth et al 10/960,132 COLAIANNI Dissenting NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) CLAUDE ANDERSON EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/522,006 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 102(e) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Barlow et al 10/284,165 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Levy et al 10/060,049 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER RAMAN, USHA

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Ignatin 10/938,095 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2618 Ex Parte Becker 10/533,728 KRIVAK 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER HU, RUI MENG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Ramirez et al 10/758,845 SAINDON 112(1)/103(a) KANG LIM EXAMINER
WEBER, JONATHAN C

3644 Ex Parte Tsengas et al 10/963,953 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRINH T
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Strang 10/469,592 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MOORE, KARLA A

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Lindell et al 10/481,053 COLAIANNI 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER FELTON, MICHAEL J

1775 Ex Parte West et al 10/701,097 COLAIANNI 103(a) EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1782 Ex Parte Lehman 10/902,300 COLAIANNI 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

1784 Ex Parte Takayama et al 11/042,187 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, JASON L

saab, pfizer, pharmastem

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Guldberg 10/399,899 ADAMS 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/984,355 SMITH 103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER CROUSE, BRETT ALAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte E et al 10/202,312 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3rd 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir 2006)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/799,961 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KRAIG, WILLIAM F

A dependent claim in a patent that fails to “‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [independent] claim to which [the dependent claim] refers” is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Casco-Arias et al 10/439,570 KIM 103(a) MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Halliburton et al 10/777,770 STAICOVICI 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

3751 Ex Parte Helmetsie et al 10/774,339 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11/862,475 TIMM 103(a) H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2771 Ex Parte 6076094 et al Ex parte IO RESEARCH PTY. LIMITED, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,058 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Richard Kim MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER HO, RUAY L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 7000325 et al Bunzl Processor Distribution LLC, Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of Bettcher Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,130 ROBERTSON 103(a) PATENT OWNER: TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: CLYDE L. SMITH THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 5741705 et al Ex parte KERRY GROUP, PLC Appellant 90/010,527 LEBOVITZ 103(a)/112(1)/305 FOR PATENT OWNER: IAN McLEOD FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

To decide whether a composition, device, or process would have been obvious in light of the prior art, it must be determined whether, at the time of invention, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1723 Ex Parte 7281842 et al Vita-Mix Corporation Requester v. K-TEC, Inc. Patent Owner 95/000,339 ROBERTSON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & HART THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER COOLEY, CHARLES E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/981,663 MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1644 Ex Parte Ringler et al 10/118,600 ADAMS 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Strebelle 10/567,263 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LORENGO, JERRY A

1762 Ex Parte Vandaele 11/498,336 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/353,110 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER JARRETT, RYAN A

2161 Ex Parte Aman et al 10/428,893 DANG 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2169 Ex Parte Kwon 11/193,347 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER VO, CECILE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Murphy et al 10/408,365 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2445 Ex Parte Li et al 10/025,790 MORGAN 103(a) David T. Nikaido RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Forbes et al 10/225,605 ROBERTSON 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER NADAV, ORI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Eason et al 10/477,055 SCHAFER 103(a) Davidson Davidson & Kappel EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D