REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Geisler et al 11/031,557 TIMM 103(a) Charles N.J. Ruggiero, Esq. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Tan et al 09/873,061 MORGAN dissenting SMITH 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER BLACK, LINH
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Kroon et al 10/274,470 RUGGIERO 103(a) Xerox Corporation EXAMINER VO, QUANG N
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Nye et al 11/223,238 GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P
In Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 339 F. 3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Court distinguished cases dealing with “accidental, unwitting, and unappreciated” anticipation, Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923) and Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1880), where the record did not conclusively establish that the prior art produced the claimed subject matter, from cases in which the record established that the claimed subject matter necessarily and inevitably was a consequence of practicing a prior art process under the normal, as opposed to hypothetical or unusual, conditions disclosed.
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Brown 10/940,994 SPAHN 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER SUERETH, SARAH ELIZABETH
See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.04 citing 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
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Green et al 11/114,485 WALSH 103(a) John A. O'Toole EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/218,642 McCOLLUM 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
1657 Ex Parte Gurewich et al 11/447,455 GRIMES 103(a) MEDLEN & CARROLL, LLP EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE
The analysis required by § 103 has been characterized as “casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). For this reason, obviousness has been likened to “the creature of an imagination projected upon the future out of materials of the past.” Schaefer, Inc. v. Mohawk Cabinet Co., 276 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1960)(Learned Hand, J.). A determination of obviousness is based only on knowledge available at the time the claimed invention was made.
Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10/369,596 TIMM 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
Such a recitation of an act that may occur in the future does not positively recite a structural relationship between the battery and the substrate. See In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1005 (CCPA 1968).
Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQm 266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(k)
1781 Ex Parte DuBois et al 09/838,809 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
Friday, August 26, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
tanaka, wyers, ICON
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Nahas 11/249,814 SMITH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J
1761 Ex Parte Shendy et al 11/099,075 SMITH 103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A
1764 Ex Parte Liaw et al 11/905,940 SMITH 103(a) Joe McKinney Muncy EXAMINER
HUHN, RICHARD A
1786 Ex Parte Zafiroglu et al 11/364,912 FRANKLIN 103(a) INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Fontoura et al 10/152,251 DROESCH 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER AVELLINO, JOSEPH E
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Baur et al 11/194,333 McCOLLUM 103(a) Henkel Corporation EXAMINER
GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/051,125 SMITH 103(a) Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
1763 Ex Parte Roby 10/533,041 FRANKLIN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
1783 Ex Parte Kia et al 10/639,306 SMITH 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/787,479 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
REHEARING
DENIED-IN-PART, GRANTED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex Parte 6033542 et al 90/007,824 11/430,299 08/574,693 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant ROBERTSON 102/251 FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN original EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Thus, because In re Tanaka holds that the addition of dependent claims as a hedge against possible invalidity is within a reasonable interpretation of the reissue statute, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id., at 1251-1252.
DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1762 Ex Parte 6709694 et al 95/000,390 09/890,690 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: PAMELA L. STEWARD, ESQ. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DORTHY P. WHELAN, ESQ. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., P.A. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB
Sirona’s reliance on cases such as Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is misplaced. Those cases involved simple mechanical inventions in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the element in dispute (e.g., the gas spring designed to stably retain a structure in the vertical position as in ICON Health) would serve the same or similar function in either the invention or the prior art.
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Nahas 11/249,814 SMITH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J
1761 Ex Parte Shendy et al 11/099,075 SMITH 103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A
1764 Ex Parte Liaw et al 11/905,940 SMITH 103(a) Joe McKinney Muncy EXAMINER
HUHN, RICHARD A
1786 Ex Parte Zafiroglu et al 11/364,912 FRANKLIN 103(a) INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Fontoura et al 10/152,251 DROESCH 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER AVELLINO, JOSEPH E
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Baur et al 11/194,333 McCOLLUM 103(a) Henkel Corporation EXAMINER
GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/051,125 SMITH 103(a) Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
1763 Ex Parte Roby 10/533,041 FRANKLIN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
1783 Ex Parte Kia et al 10/639,306 SMITH 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/787,479 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
REHEARING
DENIED-IN-PART, GRANTED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex Parte 6033542 et al 90/007,824 11/430,299 08/574,693 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant ROBERTSON 102/251 FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN original EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Thus, because In re Tanaka holds that the addition of dependent claims as a hedge against possible invalidity is within a reasonable interpretation of the reissue statute, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id., at 1251-1252.
DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1762 Ex Parte 6709694 et al 95/000,390 09/890,690 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: PAMELA L. STEWARD, ESQ. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DORTHY P. WHELAN, ESQ. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., P.A. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB
Sirona’s reliance on cases such as Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is misplaced. Those cases involved simple mechanical inventions in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the element in dispute (e.g., the gas spring designed to stably retain a structure in the vertical position as in ICON Health) would serve the same or similar function in either the invention or the prior art.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
callaway, muchmore
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ivanov et al 11/138,531 DANG 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,142 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Crawley et al 10/931,009 GREENHUT 103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART with a new ground of rejection
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte 6,779,118 B1 et al 90/009,301 09/295,966 Ex parte LINKSMART WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC TORCZON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) For the appellant: Abraham Hershkovitz & Ed Garcia-Otero, HERSHKOVITZ & ASSOCIATES, LLC For the requestor: Jerry Turner Sewell For the Commissioner of Patents: Sam Rimell with Jeffrey D. Carlson and Alexander J. Kosowski EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding jury verdict inconsistent for holding only the dependent claim to have been obvious); In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 824-25 (CCPA 1970) ("Since we agree with the board's conclusion of obviousness as to these narrow claims, the broader claims must likewise be obvious.").
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Eagles 10/740,126 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte OKONSKI et al 10/285,036 CHEN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DUONG, THOMAS
2455 Ex Parte Auffret et al 10/396,698 SMITH 103(a) King & Spalding LLP EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Green 10/562,293 DANG 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER STARK, JARRETT J
2837 Ex Parte Fitzgibbon 10/118,523 SAADAT 102(b) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER DUDA, RINA I
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Morizon et al 10/561,557 HOELTER 103(a) Theodore W Olds Carlson Gaseky & Olds EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
mlot-fijalkowski, keller, specialty
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Fodstad et al 11/047,913 PRATS 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER YU, MISOOK
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Hung et al 10/408,141 FRANKLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS
1789 Ex Parte Sandhu 10/903,295 GARRIS 103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Rhee 11/244,482 POTHIER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Curran et al 10/154,009 POTHIER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDY
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2600 Communications
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Sutardja 10/810,452 RUGGIERO 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER ROSARIO BENITEZ, GUSTAVO A
2893 Ex Parte Otsuka et al 10/350,219 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Modglin 10/919,079 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER POON, PETER M
3656 Ex Parte Nagle et al 11/561,122 SPAHN 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER LUONG, VINH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Vinegar et al 10/693,816 O’NEILL 103(a) DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER CAMPBELL, THOR S
3746 Ex Parte Krisher 11/094,581 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER WEINSTEIN, LEONARD J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Parker et al 10/174,619 COURTENAY 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Gershon 10/883,406 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Ayoub et al 11/446,853 KRATZ 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/656,015 DIXON 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Lazaridis 12/751,263 ZECHER 112(2)/103(a) Leveque Intellectual Property Law, P.C. EXAMINER THIAW, CATHERINE B
Evidence of classification of prior art in different categories by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “is inherently weak . . . because considerations in forming a classification system differ from those relating to a person of ordinary skill seeking solution for a particular problem.” In re Mlot-Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d 666, 670 n.5 (CCPA 1982).
Mlot-Fijalkowski, In re, 676 F.2d 666, 213 USPQ 713 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Tylicki et al 10/890,620 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER WALK, SAMUEL J
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Justis et al 11/341,239 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) EXAMINER HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA
3761 Ex Parte Rosenberg 10/656,973 McCARTHY 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
3768 Ex Parte Doorn et al 11/192,203 SCHEINER 103(a) LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
See Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“If the invention here would not have been obvious to one of extraordinary skill, it follows that in this case it would not be obvious to one with lesser skills.”).
Monday, August 22, 2011
amgen2, sasse
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Komiya 10/474,744 PRATS 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Seidling et al 11/847,772 McKELVEY 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA
1781 Ex Parte Soper et al 10/555,727 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER CHAWLA, JYOTI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Lavranchuk 11/618,257 RUGGIERO 102(b) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER HEALY, BRIAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Shah et al 10/983,833 ZECHER 101/102(b)/103(a) Walter W. Duft EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
2188 Ex Parte Kumar 11/237,865 DILLON Dissenting-in-part JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Troyer 09/952,002 FISCHETTI 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Wilson et al 10/801,355 HOELTER 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
3743 Ex Parte Wakeman 10/285,012 BAHR 112(1)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder Fletcher, Yoder & Van Someren EXAMINER LU, JIPING
3752 Ex Parte Chuprin 10/763,909 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) I. BROROVSKY EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D
However, the disclosures of a prior art reference are presumed to be enabled. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellant bears the burden of showing non-enablement of Farley, but has not done so. Id. at 1355 (quoting In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980)).
Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.07, 2121, 2121.02
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al 90/010,445 10/028,987 Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED LEBOVITZ 112(1) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Third Party Requester: Judy Jarecki-Black, Ph.D., JD Merial Limited EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3203 Ex Parte 6,918,532 et al 90/008,843 07/465,639 Ex parte KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL BRANDS LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 103(a) For Patent Owner: FITCH, EVEN, TABIN, & FLANNERY For Third Party Requester: Douglas J. Bucklin VOLPE and KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Rekhi et al 11/262,672 GREEN 103(a) Fox Rothschild, LLP Elan Pharma International Limited EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M
1618 Ex Parte Langstrom et al 11/344,783 GREEN 103(a) Amersham Health, Inc EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN
1651 Ex Parte Wong et al 09/912,494 SCHEINER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Solae, LLC EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Krokoszinski et al 11/277,657 HASTINGS 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Dunstan 10/644,432 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER BONZO, BRYCE P
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/162,027 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER TRAN, THANH Y
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Candy et al 11/904,823 CALVE 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M
3764 Ex Parte Price 10/741,755 BAHR 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
REHEARING
DENIED
2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte 7035281 et al 95/001,089 09/660,709 BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CISCO LINKSYS LLC; D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.; AND NETGEAR, INC. Requester and Appellant v. OPTIMUMPATH, LLC. Patent Owner and Respondent SIU SNQ PATENT OWNER: Tony D. Alexander TECHNOLOGY LEGAL COUNSEL LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TOAN D
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Komiya 10/474,744 PRATS 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Seidling et al 11/847,772 McKELVEY 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA
1781 Ex Parte Soper et al 10/555,727 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER CHAWLA, JYOTI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Lavranchuk 11/618,257 RUGGIERO 102(b) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER HEALY, BRIAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Shah et al 10/983,833 ZECHER 101/102(b)/103(a) Walter W. Duft EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
2188 Ex Parte Kumar 11/237,865 DILLON Dissenting-in-part JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Troyer 09/952,002 FISCHETTI 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Wilson et al 10/801,355 HOELTER 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
3743 Ex Parte Wakeman 10/285,012 BAHR 112(1)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder Fletcher, Yoder & Van Someren EXAMINER LU, JIPING
3752 Ex Parte Chuprin 10/763,909 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) I. BROROVSKY EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D
However, the disclosures of a prior art reference are presumed to be enabled. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellant bears the burden of showing non-enablement of Farley, but has not done so. Id. at 1355 (quoting In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980)).
Sasse, In re, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.07, 2121, 2121.02
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al 90/010,445 10/028,987 Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED LEBOVITZ 112(1) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Third Party Requester: Judy Jarecki-Black, Ph.D., JD Merial Limited EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3203 Ex Parte 6,918,532 et al 90/008,843 07/465,639 Ex parte KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL BRANDS LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 103(a) For Patent Owner: FITCH, EVEN, TABIN, & FLANNERY For Third Party Requester: Douglas J. Bucklin VOLPE and KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Rekhi et al 11/262,672 GREEN 103(a) Fox Rothschild, LLP Elan Pharma International Limited EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M
1618 Ex Parte Langstrom et al 11/344,783 GREEN 103(a) Amersham Health, Inc EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN
1651 Ex Parte Wong et al 09/912,494 SCHEINER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Solae, LLC EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Krokoszinski et al 11/277,657 HASTINGS 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Dunstan 10/644,432 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER BONZO, BRYCE P
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/162,027 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER TRAN, THANH Y
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Candy et al 11/904,823 CALVE 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M
3764 Ex Parte Price 10/741,755 BAHR 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
REHEARING
DENIED
2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte 7035281 et al 95/001,089 09/660,709 BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CISCO LINKSYS LLC; D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.; AND NETGEAR, INC. Requester and Appellant v. OPTIMUMPATH, LLC. Patent Owner and Respondent SIU SNQ PATENT OWNER: Tony D. Alexander TECHNOLOGY LEGAL COUNSEL LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TOAN D
Friday, August 19, 2011
fritch, princeton biochemicals, gechter, pullman-standard
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Hsu 12/156,687 NAGUMO 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Shepard 11/541,354 DESHPANDE 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T
2165 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11/130,773 STEPHENS 101/103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Neo et al 11/164,204 SAADAT 103(a) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/302,162 COCKS 112(2)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
A patent examiner evaluating the patentability of a claimed invention must take care when assessing the teachings of the prior art to refrain from impermissible reliance on hindsight using the inventor’s own disclosure in concluding obviousness. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The record must show that a skilled artisan confronted by the problems faced by the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would have selected the various elements of the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed. Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/514,320 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nelson 11/337,098 BAHR 103(a) Jonathan A. Bay EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3671 Ex Parte 6,336,311 et al 95/000,245 THE TORO COMPANY Requester v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 102/103(a)/112(1) Patent Owner: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Third Party Requestor James W. Miller EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11/270,818 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TABONE JR, JOHN J
2186 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11/066,487 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Novack et al 10/887,807 GONSALVES 101/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER SHAN, APRIL YING
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Gotsick et al 11/592,680 KRIVAK 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance, LLP EXAMINER YAN, REN LUO
2858 Ex Parte Lubcke et al 10/694,349 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KOVAL, MELISSA J
REHEARING
DENIED - VACATED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N
As explained by the Gechter court (supra), vacatur is appropriate when the decision under review “lacks adequate fact findings [and] meaningful review is not possible.” Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457. The federal circuit courts of appeal vacate trial court decisions “[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982). See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 52.12[1] (3d ed., Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 1997) (“When the trial court completely fails . . . to make findings on a material issue, the appellate court is entitled to vacate the judgment and remand the action to the district court . . . .” (footnotes omitted)).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Hsu 12/156,687 NAGUMO 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Shepard 11/541,354 DESHPANDE 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T
2165 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11/130,773 STEPHENS 101/103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Neo et al 11/164,204 SAADAT 103(a) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/302,162 COCKS 112(2)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
A patent examiner evaluating the patentability of a claimed invention must take care when assessing the teachings of the prior art to refrain from impermissible reliance on hindsight using the inventor’s own disclosure in concluding obviousness. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The record must show that a skilled artisan confronted by the problems faced by the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would have selected the various elements of the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed. Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/514,320 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nelson 11/337,098 BAHR 103(a) Jonathan A. Bay EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3671 Ex Parte 6,336,311 et al 95/000,245 THE TORO COMPANY Requester v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 102/103(a)/112(1) Patent Owner: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Third Party Requestor James W. Miller EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11/270,818 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TABONE JR, JOHN J
2186 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11/066,487 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Novack et al 10/887,807 GONSALVES 101/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER SHAN, APRIL YING
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Gotsick et al 11/592,680 KRIVAK 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance, LLP EXAMINER YAN, REN LUO
2858 Ex Parte Lubcke et al 10/694,349 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KOVAL, MELISSA J
REHEARING
DENIED - VACATED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N
As explained by the Gechter court (supra), vacatur is appropriate when the decision under review “lacks adequate fact findings [and] meaningful review is not possible.” Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457. The federal circuit courts of appeal vacate trial court decisions “[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982). See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 52.12[1] (3d ed., Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 1997) (“When the trial court completely fails . . . to make findings on a material issue, the appellate court is entitled to vacate the judgment and remand the action to the district court . . . .” (footnotes omitted)).
Thursday, August 18, 2011
spada, corkill, caveney, johnson, leshin, agilent
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/800,622 PRATS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Dewey 10/864,716 GARRIS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
1776 Ex Parte Ostein et al 10/480,946 FRANKLIN 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER WU, IVES J
Under such circumstances, we are persuaded by Appellants of error in the Examiner’s rejections for lacking sufficient motivation to combine. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response
to the Examiner’s case, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Caveny, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Suh 11/684,026 LEE 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Sawano et al 11/011,492 HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER AHMED, MASUD
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/377,650 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/943,688 HASTINGS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,415 DANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lamstein 11/024,398 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER PRICE JR, RICHARD THOMAS
Cf. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199 (CCPA 1960) (the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art).
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Turkel et al 11/039,506 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER FORD, VANESSA L
It is well settled that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ueberschar et al 10/783,864 NAGUMO 103(a) Todd T. Taylor Taylor & Aust, P.C. EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Gambino et al 10/163,884 HORNER 101/103(a) Thomas M. Galgano EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E
2456 Ex Parte Ball et al 10/677,797 ROBERTSON 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Huckins 11/481,319 BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Moses 11/113,425 KIM 112(2)/103(a) Manuel Brad Moses EXAMINER JOHNS, CHRISTOPHER C
3682 Ex Parte Adams et al 10/865,998 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/800,622 PRATS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Dewey 10/864,716 GARRIS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
1776 Ex Parte Ostein et al 10/480,946 FRANKLIN 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER WU, IVES J
Under such circumstances, we are persuaded by Appellants of error in the Examiner’s rejections for lacking sufficient motivation to combine. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response
to the Examiner’s case, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Caveny, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Suh 11/684,026 LEE 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Sawano et al 11/011,492 HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER AHMED, MASUD
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/377,650 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/943,688 HASTINGS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,415 DANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lamstein 11/024,398 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER PRICE JR, RICHARD THOMAS
Cf. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199 (CCPA 1960) (the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art).
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Turkel et al 11/039,506 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER FORD, VANESSA L
It is well settled that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ueberschar et al 10/783,864 NAGUMO 103(a) Todd T. Taylor Taylor & Aust, P.C. EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Gambino et al 10/163,884 HORNER 101/103(a) Thomas M. Galgano EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E
2456 Ex Parte Ball et al 10/677,797 ROBERTSON 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Huckins 11/481,319 BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Moses 11/113,425 KIM 112(2)/103(a) Manuel Brad Moses EXAMINER JOHNS, CHRISTOPHER C
3682 Ex Parte Adams et al 10/865,998 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Caldwell et al 11/002,998 PRATS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER PACKARD, BENJAMIN J
1618 Ex Parte Tang et al 10/719,516 ADAMS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER ROGERS, JAMES WILLIAM
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Nagayama et al 10/477,759 NAGUMO 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L
1763 Ex Parte Bieser et al 11/492,379 PRATS 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER
MESH, GENNADIY
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Whitney 09/921,375 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER GENACK, MATTHEW W
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Utterberg et al 11/416,371 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER STERLING, AMY JO
3651 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10/678,155 O’NEILL 103(a) DOCKET CLERK EXAMINER KUMAR, RAKESH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Vortman et al 10/328,584 CALVE 103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI
3763 Ex Parte Vaillancourt 11/150,711 SPAHN 103(a) CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,501 HOFF obviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/107,422 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Fiandaca et al 11/607,816 PRATS 102(e)/103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER BERTAGNA, ANGELA MARIE
1638 Ex Parte Liu et al 10/425,114 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1)/101/obviousness-type double patenting MONSANTO COMPANY (A&P) EXAMINER BUI, PHUONG T
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Debe et al 11/225,690 GARRIS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER EMPIE, NATHAN H
1716 Ex Parte Wise et al 10/336,148 KRATZ 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP - IBM FISHKILL EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY
1741 Ex Parte Falkenstein et al 10/829,614 FRANKLIN 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
1781 Ex Parte Belmar et al 11/086,481 PRATS 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER STULII, VERA
1786 Ex Parte Brandel et al 10/736,117 OWENS 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Meyer et al 10/612,307 O’NEILL 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG
3724 Ex Parte Walker et al 11/391,970 COCKS 112(1)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER LANDRUM, EDWARD F
3763 Ex Parte Abboud et al 11/074,293 LEE 102/103 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
REHEARING
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Mirlas et al 11/160,866 FISCHETTI CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIEH
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Nevenka et al 10/011,872 RUGGIERO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Sriram 11/157,356 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, COLLEEN ANN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Kucharczyk et al 10/444,884 O’NEILL 103(a) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Hale et al 11/347,307 GREEN 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER REDDIG, PETER J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Birt et al 10/759,241 MORGAN 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER ALMEIDA, DEVIN E
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Heo et al 10/925,619 FRAHM 102(b)/103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LIM, STEVEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Walter et al 11/290,353 CRAWFORD 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Nickel et al 11/117,901 BAHR 102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
3767 Ex Parte Field 11/538,918 GREENHUT 103(a) C. R. Bard, Inc. Bard Biopsy Systems EXAMINER HALL, DEANNA K
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Janardanan Nair et al 11/101,721 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L
1617 Ex Parte Rudnic et al 10/611,076 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI EXAMINER AZPURU, CARLOS A
1629 Ex Parte Rohrs et al 11/850,152 PRATS 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER BLAKELY III, NELSON CLARENCE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Parry 10/144,906 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2451 Ex Parte Heo et al 10/253,708 DILLON 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 11/136,192 HAHN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/090,708 SAADAT 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER
PHAM, LONG
2823 Ex Parte Luo et al 10/826,985 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY EXAMINER STARK, JARRETT J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/216,557 CRAWFORD 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER JUNG, ALLEN J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Johnson 10/319,858 KAUFFMAN 112(2)/103(a) PATENTTM.US EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT
REHEARING
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Marce et al 09/969,579 DANG 102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte ONEILL et al 10/449,173 SAINDON 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER DUONG, THO V
3775 Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Nevenka et al 10/011,872 RUGGIERO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Sriram 11/157,356 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, COLLEEN ANN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Kucharczyk et al 10/444,884 O’NEILL 103(a) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Hale et al 11/347,307 GREEN 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER REDDIG, PETER J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Birt et al 10/759,241 MORGAN 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER ALMEIDA, DEVIN E
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Heo et al 10/925,619 FRAHM 102(b)/103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LIM, STEVEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Walter et al 11/290,353 CRAWFORD 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Nickel et al 11/117,901 BAHR 102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
3767 Ex Parte Field 11/538,918 GREENHUT 103(a) C. R. Bard, Inc. Bard Biopsy Systems EXAMINER HALL, DEANNA K
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Janardanan Nair et al 11/101,721 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L
1617 Ex Parte Rudnic et al 10/611,076 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI EXAMINER AZPURU, CARLOS A
1629 Ex Parte Rohrs et al 11/850,152 PRATS 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER BLAKELY III, NELSON CLARENCE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Parry 10/144,906 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2451 Ex Parte Heo et al 10/253,708 DILLON 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 11/136,192 HAHN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/090,708 SAADAT 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER
PHAM, LONG
2823 Ex Parte Luo et al 10/826,985 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY EXAMINER STARK, JARRETT J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/216,557 CRAWFORD 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER JUNG, ALLEN J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Johnson 10/319,858 KAUFFMAN 112(2)/103(a) PATENTTM.US EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT
REHEARING
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Marce et al 09/969,579 DANG 102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte ONEILL et al 10/449,173 SAINDON 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER DUONG, THO V
3775 Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
Friday, August 12, 2011
goffe, skoll, gardner, comaper, bilstad, brookhill-wilk, texas digital
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Prosise 11/168,163 WALSH 103(a) William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Farkas et al 10/614,856 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALMATRAHI, FARIS S
The Examiner has not made the case that the claims are insolubly ambiguous. By the Examiner’s own construction of the claims, they cover a number of different possible embodiments. “The mere fact that the claims cover a large number of possible process steps and imaging member materials does not in and of itself make the claims indefinite.” In re Goffe, 188 USPQ 131 (C.C.P.A. 1975), citing In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1975). “Breadth is not indefiniteness.” In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (1970).
Goffe, In re, 542 F.2d 564, 191 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2164.08(c)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/016,221 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Hauri et al 10/665,514 COCKS 103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Sezan et al 10/894,620 SAADAT 101/102(b)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
2427 Ex Parte Augenbraun et al 11/071,426 DILLON 102(e)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Rijn 11/145,503 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N
3635 Ex Parte Hageman 10/864,225 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R
If the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to a claim term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Board decision construing the term “plurality” for purposes of reviewing a written description rejection. The Board noted that the term “plurality” had a plurality of dictionary definitions consistent with the disclosure in the specification and construed the term as used in the claim so as to encompass all of the dictionary definitions. The Court held that, “[i]f more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings.” Id. Implicit in this holding is approval to the Board’s decision to give the term “plurality” its broadest reasonable interpretation despite dueling dictionary definitions. See also Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Tex. Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (“If more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings”).
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01
Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 64 USPQ2d 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2173.05(a)
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Prosise 11/168,163 WALSH 103(a) William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Farkas et al 10/614,856 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALMATRAHI, FARIS S
The Examiner has not made the case that the claims are insolubly ambiguous. By the Examiner’s own construction of the claims, they cover a number of different possible embodiments. “The mere fact that the claims cover a large number of possible process steps and imaging member materials does not in and of itself make the claims indefinite.” In re Goffe, 188 USPQ 131 (C.C.P.A. 1975), citing In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1975). “Breadth is not indefiniteness.” In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (1970).
Goffe, In re, 542 F.2d 564, 191 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2164.08(c)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/016,221 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Hauri et al 10/665,514 COCKS 103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Sezan et al 10/894,620 SAADAT 101/102(b)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
2427 Ex Parte Augenbraun et al 11/071,426 DILLON 102(e)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Rijn 11/145,503 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N
3635 Ex Parte Hageman 10/864,225 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R
If the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to a claim term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Board decision construing the term “plurality” for purposes of reviewing a written description rejection. The Board noted that the term “plurality” had a plurality of dictionary definitions consistent with the disclosure in the specification and construed the term as used in the claim so as to encompass all of the dictionary definitions. The Court held that, “[i]f more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings.” Id. Implicit in this holding is approval to the Board’s decision to give the term “plurality” its broadest reasonable interpretation despite dueling dictionary definitions. See also Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Tex. Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (“If more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings”).
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01
Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 64 USPQ2d 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2173.05(a)
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)