REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Moosman et al 10/148,557 GREEN 112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER TELLER, ROY R
1655 Ex Parte Jia et al 11/457,388 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER MELLER, MICHAEL V
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 11/063,546 HANLON 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
1731 Ex Parte Wilzbacher et al 11/199,618 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
1761 Ex Parte Gohl et al 10/345,090 KRATZ 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R
1767 Ex Parte McGinnis et al 12/008,534 GREEN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STANLEY, JANE L
1783 Ex Parte Kmetz 11/654,302 NAGUMO 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Katayama 10/501,082 STEPHENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MUSA, ABDELNABI O
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Bobb et al 10/374,291 MORGAN 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CAVALLARI, DANIEL J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Hughes 11/595,026 PATE III 112(1)/103(a) PETER K HAHN LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON, SCRIPPS, LLP. EXAMINER AVILA, STEPHEN P
3656 Ex Parte Oishi et al 10/905,075 KERINS 103(a)/112(2) DELAND LAW OFFICE EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ausnit 11/451,793 BROWN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Bhagavatula et al 10/948,995 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER WONG, ERIC K
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 7052207 et al Ex parte BRIAN J. WIMBERGER 90/009,717 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, PA EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEE, JONG SUK
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Mandel et al 10/768,798 PRATS 112(2) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (SF) EXAMINER HAYES, ROBERT CLINTON
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Esser et al 10/641,995 ROBERTSON 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SHEEHAN, JOHN P
1746 Ex Parte Cadieux et al 11/642,150 GUEST 103(a) Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J
1763 Ex Parte Verhaverbeke 10/873,261 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) APPLIED MATERIALS/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA
1786 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/011,587 McKELVEY 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S
1798 Ex Parte Martin Rivera et al 10/554,213 McKELVEY 102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
To be sure, a reference used in a § 103 context must be enabling. In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).
Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02, 2144.09, 2145
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Welbergen 10/507,509 MORGAN 103(a) JACK SHORE MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, PC EXAMINER VIDWAN, JASJIT S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Morris et al 09/968,540 MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/101/102/Double
Patenting FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Raj et al 09/839,023 RUGGIERO 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER VANDERPUYE, KENNETH N
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Fahrbach et al 10/538,526 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER WHITE, DYLAN C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Nyeboer et al 11/122,686 LEE 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J
REHEARING
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Malamud et al 10/927,842 KRIVAK 103(a) KELLER LAPUMA WOODARD PC - IV EXAMINER BALAOING, ARIEL A
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
nomiya
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Selvamanickam 10/736,210 SMITH 103(a) ABEL LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K
1716 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/929,348 SMITH 103(a) Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY
1735 Ex Parte Propheter-Hinckley et al 11/589,581 SMITH 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
1742 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/633,203 SMITH 103(a) NOVA Chemicals Inc./Karen S. Lockhart EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T
1745 Ex Parte MOELLER et al 11/620,952 SMITH 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N
1783 Ex Parte Hornick et al 10/979,265 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER MILLER, DANIEL H
1789 Ex Parte Mussawir-Key 10/511,694 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Harding 12/022,423 CRAWFORD 102(b) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sansevero et al 10/550,927 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Opie et al 10/863,009 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Phil Mitchell Scottsdale Medical Devices EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 6964688 et al 90/009,387 Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLPEXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
“It is necessary to consider everything appellants have said about what is prior art to determine the exact scope of their admission.” In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 (CCPA 1975).
Nomiya, In re, 509 F.2d 566, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2129, 2258
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Bishop et al 10/841,046 WALSH 103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D
1627 Ex Parte Bosch et al 10/697,716 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 10/988,179 SMITH 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
1741 Ex Parte Bajorek 10/659,006 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
1765 Ex Parte Damme 11/793,582 SMITH 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER TISCHLER, FRANCES
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Broms et al 10/154,742 FETTING 101/112(1) IM IP Law PLLC EXAMINER HAMMOND III, THOMAS M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Watanabe 11/637,839 CLARKE 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Selvamanickam 10/736,210 SMITH 103(a) ABEL LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K
1716 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/929,348 SMITH 103(a) Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY
1735 Ex Parte Propheter-Hinckley et al 11/589,581 SMITH 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
1742 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/633,203 SMITH 103(a) NOVA Chemicals Inc./Karen S. Lockhart EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T
1745 Ex Parte MOELLER et al 11/620,952 SMITH 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N
1783 Ex Parte Hornick et al 10/979,265 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER MILLER, DANIEL H
1789 Ex Parte Mussawir-Key 10/511,694 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Harding 12/022,423 CRAWFORD 102(b) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sansevero et al 10/550,927 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Opie et al 10/863,009 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Phil Mitchell Scottsdale Medical Devices EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 6964688 et al 90/009,387 Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLPEXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
“It is necessary to consider everything appellants have said about what is prior art to determine the exact scope of their admission.” In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571 (CCPA 1975).
Nomiya, In re, 509 F.2d 566, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2129, 2258
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Bishop et al 10/841,046 WALSH 103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D
1627 Ex Parte Bosch et al 10/697,716 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 10/988,179 SMITH 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
1741 Ex Parte Bajorek 10/659,006 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
1765 Ex Parte Damme 11/793,582 SMITH 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER TISCHLER, FRANCES
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Broms et al 10/154,742 FETTING 101/112(1) IM IP Law PLLC EXAMINER HAMMOND III, THOMAS M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Watanabe 11/637,839 CLARKE 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN
Friday, September 23, 2011
kerkhoven, cross med.
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11/810,639 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
1723 Ex Parte Gui et al 11/058,850 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M
1731 Ex Parte Lo et al 10/511,865 HASTINGS 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
Additionally, the Examiner repeatedly relies upon In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (Ans. 4, 5, 7), to combine the three applied references, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two or three
compositions, each taught for the same purpose to yield a third composition for that very purpose.” See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, page 4, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).
In Kerkhoven, however, the claims required “no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents.” Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850. In contrast, in the present rejection, the Examiner is making at least two substitutions to the Reynolds invention in order to arrive at the current claimed invention...
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kitchin 10/208,995 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Ross et al 11/198,699 GONSALVES 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Dubbert et al 10/826,782 HORNER 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Haering et al 11/169,773 SCHEINER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PRICE, ELVIS O
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Tuttle 11/214,339 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
(motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
1761 Ex Parte Frankenbach et al 11/405,729 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11/810,639 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
1723 Ex Parte Gui et al 11/058,850 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M
1731 Ex Parte Lo et al 10/511,865 HASTINGS 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
Additionally, the Examiner repeatedly relies upon In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (Ans. 4, 5, 7), to combine the three applied references, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two or three
compositions, each taught for the same purpose to yield a third composition for that very purpose.” See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, page 4, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).
In Kerkhoven, however, the claims required “no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents.” Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850. In contrast, in the present rejection, the Examiner is making at least two substitutions to the Reynolds invention in order to arrive at the current claimed invention...
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kitchin 10/208,995 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Ross et al 11/198,699 GONSALVES 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Dubbert et al 10/826,782 HORNER 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Haering et al 11/169,773 SCHEINER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PRICE, ELVIS O
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Tuttle 11/214,339 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
(motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
1761 Ex Parte Frankenbach et al 11/405,729 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H
Thursday, September 22, 2011
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Schiffman 10/379,157 LANE 102(e)/103(a) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Long et al 11/986,074 FRANKLIN 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Kapoor et al 11/041,815 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER KIECHLE, CAITLIN ANNE
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Maas et al 12/279,792 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
1622 Ex Parte Graham 10/976,507 WALSH 112(1) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER KOSAR, ANDREW D
1623 Ex Parte Petito et al 11/100,546 GRIMES 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN
1649 Ex Parte Dochniak et al 11/201,807 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) Michael J. Dochniak EXAMINER CHERNYSHEV, OLGA N
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Trevathan 10/383,261 SMITH 103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER AL AUBAIDI, RASHA S
2627 Ex Parte Hagiya et al 11/153,164 BAUMEISTER 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER CASTRO, ANGEL A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Stoner 11/153,975 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHOY, PAN G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gregorich 10/864,665 SCHAFER 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
3761 Ex Parte Flohr 11/059,941 GREENHUT 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Schiffman 10/379,157 LANE 102(e)/103(a) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Long et al 11/986,074 FRANKLIN 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Kapoor et al 11/041,815 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER KIECHLE, CAITLIN ANNE
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Maas et al 12/279,792 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
1622 Ex Parte Graham 10/976,507 WALSH 112(1) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER KOSAR, ANDREW D
1623 Ex Parte Petito et al 11/100,546 GRIMES 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN
1649 Ex Parte Dochniak et al 11/201,807 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) Michael J. Dochniak EXAMINER CHERNYSHEV, OLGA N
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Trevathan 10/383,261 SMITH 103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER AL AUBAIDI, RASHA S
2627 Ex Parte Hagiya et al 11/153,164 BAUMEISTER 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER CASTRO, ANGEL A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Stoner 11/153,975 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHOY, PAN G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gregorich 10/864,665 SCHAFER 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
3761 Ex Parte Flohr 11/059,941 GREENHUT 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
dillon
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Feenstra et al 11/294,603 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BERNHARDT, EMILY B
[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound . . . be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound . . . will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant.
In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” Id. “[T]he burden (and opportunity) then falls on applicant to rebut that prima facie case.” Id. at 692.
Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have. . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed composition and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed compound or composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.
Id. at 692-693 (internal citations omitted).
Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/620,334 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
1733 Ex Parte Hiraiwa et al 10/661,638 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L
1763 Ex Parte Huynh 10/797,826 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Avery Dennison Corporation EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
1787 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/509,319 NAGUMO 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
1798 Ex Parte Giron et al 10/564,501 KIMLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Sylthe et al 11/251,551 CHEN 103(a) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, SHAHID AL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kramer 10/104,863 LUCAS 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Gierhart et al 10/356,134 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Droux et al 10/541,121 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALPERN, MARK
1763 Ex Parte Loth et al 12/119,138 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/517,957 MILLS 103(a) Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
1634 Ex Parte Tanaami et al 11/446,225 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Wieser 11/341,292 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK J
1747 Ex Parte McCormick et al 10/853,750 WARREN 103(a) Cynthia L. Foulke NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL
1763 Ex Parte Brobeil et al 11/523,532 GREEN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
1788 Ex Parte Li et al 11/314,113 KRATZ 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kolar et al 10/432,316 CHEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Johannsen et al 10/349,921 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Abadeer et al 11/340,340 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N
2857 Ex Parte McClanahan et al 11/185,371 HAHN 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES
2861 Ex Parte Sampath et al 11/170,845 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Starkey et al 09/930,668 DESHPANDE 101/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER PORTER, RACHEL L
The preamble recites a “computer-implemented method,” the steps of the method fail to explicitly require any of the steps to be performed on a computer. As such, this recitation in the preamble is a mere nominal recitation of structure. At most, a “computer-implemented method” ties the process to any general-purpose computer. We find no evidence that the claims require the method steps to be hosted on a computer.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Lazar 10/098,851 McCOLLUM 103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
REHEARING
DENIED
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Madden et al 11/166,975 WHITEHEAD, JR. USEFUL ARTS IP MICHAEL J. URE EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Feenstra et al 11/294,603 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BERNHARDT, EMILY B
[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound . . . be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound . . . will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant.
In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” Id. “[T]he burden (and opportunity) then falls on applicant to rebut that prima facie case.” Id. at 692.
Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have. . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed composition and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed compound or composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.
Id. at 692-693 (internal citations omitted).
Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/620,334 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
1733 Ex Parte Hiraiwa et al 10/661,638 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L
1763 Ex Parte Huynh 10/797,826 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Avery Dennison Corporation EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
1787 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/509,319 NAGUMO 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
1798 Ex Parte Giron et al 10/564,501 KIMLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Sylthe et al 11/251,551 CHEN 103(a) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, SHAHID AL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kramer 10/104,863 LUCAS 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Gierhart et al 10/356,134 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Droux et al 10/541,121 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALPERN, MARK
1763 Ex Parte Loth et al 12/119,138 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/517,957 MILLS 103(a) Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
1634 Ex Parte Tanaami et al 11/446,225 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Wieser 11/341,292 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK J
1747 Ex Parte McCormick et al 10/853,750 WARREN 103(a) Cynthia L. Foulke NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL
1763 Ex Parte Brobeil et al 11/523,532 GREEN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
1788 Ex Parte Li et al 11/314,113 KRATZ 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kolar et al 10/432,316 CHEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Johannsen et al 10/349,921 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Abadeer et al 11/340,340 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N
2857 Ex Parte McClanahan et al 11/185,371 HAHN 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES
2861 Ex Parte Sampath et al 11/170,845 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Starkey et al 09/930,668 DESHPANDE 101/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER PORTER, RACHEL L
The preamble recites a “computer-implemented method,” the steps of the method fail to explicitly require any of the steps to be performed on a computer. As such, this recitation in the preamble is a mere nominal recitation of structure. At most, a “computer-implemented method” ties the process to any general-purpose computer. We find no evidence that the claims require the method steps to be hosted on a computer.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Lazar 10/098,851 McCOLLUM 103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
REHEARING
DENIED
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Madden et al 11/166,975 WHITEHEAD, JR. USEFUL ARTS IP MICHAEL J. URE EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
barker, ohshiro, sivaramakrishnan, saunders
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly et al 11/072,735 MILLS 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Hou 10/716,529 HOFF 102(b) BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/034,224 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MILORD, MARCEAU
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Saltykov et al 11/386,063 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SAN MARTIN, EDGARDO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Shenoy et al 11/070,398 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PUTTLITZ, KARL J
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6,164,533 et al Ex parte Barton Patent 533 LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,064 TURNER concurring Easthom 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: MEL BARNES CAPITAL LEGAL GROUP, LLC EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER LEE, MICHAEL GUNYOUNG
“That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that that step is part of appellants' invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of §112.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). An amendment to a claim which further limits its scope to a species not explicitly disclosed, although covered by the scope of the generic claim, does not comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Ex parte Ohshiro, 14 USPQ 2d 1750 (BPAI 1989).
Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 6372460 et al Ex parte MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Appellant 90/010,464 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WEBER, JON P
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Koverech et al 11/649,796 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M
1638 Ex Parte Sticklen 11/489,234 WALSH 103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER PAGE, BRENT T
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Ohnstad et al 11/411,688 FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R
1761 Ex Parte Somerville Roberts et al 11/788,068 NAGUMO 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R
In a similar circumstance, the predecessor to our reviewing court remarked, “the fact remains that one of ordinary skill informed by the teachings of [the reference] would not have had to choose judiciously from a genus of possible combinations of resin and salt to obtain the very subject matter to which appellant’s composition per se claims are directed.” In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CCPA 1982) (finding, in that case, anticipation of the claimed compound).
1763 Ex Parte Klesczewski et al 12/070,614 McKELVEY 102(b) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Yuen 11/021,478 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Sayeed 09/795,726 FRAHM non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHI HO A
See Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d, 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that where a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the inference that the independent claim encompasses subject matter which does not include the added limitation).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Suelzle et al 10/848,226 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly et al 11/072,735 MILLS 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Hou 10/716,529 HOFF 102(b) BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/034,224 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MILORD, MARCEAU
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Saltykov et al 11/386,063 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SAN MARTIN, EDGARDO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Shenoy et al 11/070,398 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PUTTLITZ, KARL J
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6,164,533 et al Ex parte Barton Patent 533 LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,064 TURNER concurring Easthom 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: MEL BARNES CAPITAL LEGAL GROUP, LLC EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER LEE, MICHAEL GUNYOUNG
“That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that that step is part of appellants' invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of §112.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). An amendment to a claim which further limits its scope to a species not explicitly disclosed, although covered by the scope of the generic claim, does not comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Ex parte Ohshiro, 14 USPQ 2d 1750 (BPAI 1989).
Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 6372460 et al Ex parte MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Appellant 90/010,464 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WEBER, JON P
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Koverech et al 11/649,796 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M
1638 Ex Parte Sticklen 11/489,234 WALSH 103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER PAGE, BRENT T
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Ohnstad et al 11/411,688 FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R
1761 Ex Parte Somerville Roberts et al 11/788,068 NAGUMO 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R
In a similar circumstance, the predecessor to our reviewing court remarked, “the fact remains that one of ordinary skill informed by the teachings of [the reference] would not have had to choose judiciously from a genus of possible combinations of resin and salt to obtain the very subject matter to which appellant’s composition per se claims are directed.” In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CCPA 1982) (finding, in that case, anticipation of the claimed compound).
1763 Ex Parte Klesczewski et al 12/070,614 McKELVEY 102(b) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Yuen 11/021,478 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Sayeed 09/795,726 FRAHM non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHI HO A
See Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d, 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that where a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the inference that the independent claim encompasses subject matter which does not include the added limitation).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Suelzle et al 10/848,226 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI
Monday, September 19, 2011
Google Scholar
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Klug et al 11/254,426 FRANKLIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Kuramochi 09/785,230 WINSOR 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Nidd 10/062,108 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) ANNE VACHON DOUGHERTY EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Bolle et al 09/789,957 FISCHETTI 103(a) PERMAN & GREEN, LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Boucher et al 11/253,987 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ROBIC EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
In my view, the Majority opinion fails to appreciate the high level of skill of the ordinary artisan which results in their erroneous conclusion of law.
As evidence of this high level of skill in the art at the time of invention, after a six minute Google Scholar search using “microarray”, “normalization” and “dilution” as search terms, I identified the Schuchhardt reference.
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hansenne et al 10/367,700 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HUI, SAN MING R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Cuckson et al 10/404,819 STEPHENS 103(a) Qwest Communications International Inc. EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Spring 11/052,458 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER MOVVA, AMAR
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Siddiqui et al 10/683,231 SAINDON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Klug et al 11/254,426 FRANKLIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Kuramochi 09/785,230 WINSOR 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Nidd 10/062,108 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) ANNE VACHON DOUGHERTY EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Bolle et al 09/789,957 FISCHETTI 103(a) PERMAN & GREEN, LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Boucher et al 11/253,987 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ROBIC EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
In my view, the Majority opinion fails to appreciate the high level of skill of the ordinary artisan which results in their erroneous conclusion of law.
As evidence of this high level of skill in the art at the time of invention, after a six minute Google Scholar search using “microarray”, “normalization” and “dilution” as search terms, I identified the Schuchhardt reference.
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hansenne et al 10/367,700 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HUI, SAN MING R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Cuckson et al 10/404,819 STEPHENS 103(a) Qwest Communications International Inc. EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Spring 11/052,458 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER MOVVA, AMAR
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Siddiqui et al 10/683,231 SAINDON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R
Friday, September 16, 2011
kronig, boyer, bush, hyatt2
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/019,492 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER LISTVOYB, GREGORY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Stobbs et al 10/806,307 POTHIER 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M
2181 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 10/727,102 DESHPANDE 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN
2188 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/054,886 ZECHER 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER GU, SHAWN X
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/952,708 KRIVAK 102(e) Synopsys/Fenwick EXAMINER KALAM, ABUL
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Elgee et al 11/021,650 McCARTHY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MORRISON, THOMAS A
3657 Ex Parte Murakami 10/698,481 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/220,831 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) 102(a,b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bohannon et al 11/025,846 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
2161 Ex Parte Boss et al 10/992,572 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N
2179 Ex Parte Hymes et al 10/633,250 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) FROST BROWN TODD LLC EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte McCall et al 10/956,426 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON
AFFIRMED
1653 Ex Parte Kilminster 10/570,447 ADAMS 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Wendker et al 12/093,097 MILLS 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Matthews et al 10/814,426 HUGHES 103(a) HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
Although we apply a somewhat different reasoning than that provided by the Examiner, where, as here, the limitations at issue are found in a single reference and the thrust of the obviousness reasoning remains the same, the Board may rely on a single reference to affirm a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) without designating it a new ground of rejection. Reliance upon fewer references in affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not normally constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); see also Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The Board cannot be said to have presented a new ground of rejection simply by elaborating on the examiner’s rejection or by using different words.”).
Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.03
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Gugliotta 11/293,756 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Pommereau 10/525,900 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Savic et al 11/343,584 O’NEILL 102(b) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/019,492 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER LISTVOYB, GREGORY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Stobbs et al 10/806,307 POTHIER 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M
2181 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 10/727,102 DESHPANDE 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN
2188 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/054,886 ZECHER 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER GU, SHAWN X
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/952,708 KRIVAK 102(e) Synopsys/Fenwick EXAMINER KALAM, ABUL
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Elgee et al 11/021,650 McCARTHY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MORRISON, THOMAS A
3657 Ex Parte Murakami 10/698,481 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/220,831 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) 102(a,b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bohannon et al 11/025,846 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
2161 Ex Parte Boss et al 10/992,572 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N
2179 Ex Parte Hymes et al 10/633,250 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) FROST BROWN TODD LLC EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte McCall et al 10/956,426 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON
AFFIRMED
1653 Ex Parte Kilminster 10/570,447 ADAMS 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Wendker et al 12/093,097 MILLS 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Matthews et al 10/814,426 HUGHES 103(a) HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
Although we apply a somewhat different reasoning than that provided by the Examiner, where, as here, the limitations at issue are found in a single reference and the thrust of the obviousness reasoning remains the same, the Board may rely on a single reference to affirm a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) without designating it a new ground of rejection. Reliance upon fewer references in affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not normally constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); see also Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The Board cannot be said to have presented a new ground of rejection simply by elaborating on the examiner’s rejection or by using different words.”).
Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.03
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Gugliotta 11/293,756 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Pommereau 10/525,900 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Savic et al 11/343,584 O’NEILL 102(b) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
Thursday, September 15, 2011
topliff, morris
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Pau et al 10/516,946 ADAMS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Yasuoka et al 10/743,745 WARREN 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
1762 Ex Parte Mahl et al 10/874,374 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PRAXAIR, INC. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte McArdle 10/988,460 LUCAS 103(a) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER
ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Martinez et al 10/613,433 NAPPI 103(a) Carmen Pili Ekstrom EXAMINER
MAYO III, WILLIAM H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Leichter 10/549,091 CRAWFORD 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER
AN, IG TAI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Corcoran et al 11/413,767 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PACKARD, BENJAMIN J
1627 Ex Parte Diorio et al 11/642,509 GRIMES 103(a) 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER KAROL, JODY LYNN
1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K
1642 Ex Parte Santin et al 11/248,702 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) 112(1)/103(a) COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C. EXAMINER GODDARD, LAURA B
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/494,581 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SANZO, LLC EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/393,315 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/860,597 BAHR 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER LARSON, JUSTIN MATTHEW
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3723 Ex Parte 6364302 et al 95/000,195 09/896,083 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) For Third Party Requester: YOUNG BASILE For Patent Owner: SAMUEL W. APICELLI DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al 95/001,163 10/376,935 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b) PATENT OWNER: SOFER & HAROUN LLP. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER BARNIE, REXFORD N
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN PART & REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3505 Ex Parte 5566913 et al 90/010,056 & 90/010,078 08/455,386 DELMENDO 103(a) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROBERT G. WOOLSTON, ESQ. PERKINS COIE LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER BRIAN M. BERLINER, ESQ. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J original EXAMINER PUROL, SARAH L
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leonard 10/821,278 FREDMAN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Crabtree et al 10/479,070 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER QIAN, YUN
1733 Ex Parte Kangas et al 11/666,903 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH
1771 Ex Parte Monaghan et al 10/535,487 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) RODMAN RODMAN EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Grandy et al 09/927,972 DANG 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER BLACK, LINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Malik et al 11/082,703 ROBERTSON Concurring TORCZON 103(a) Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R
Patent specifications and claims have long been said to "constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy". Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892). This difficulty does not, however, justify
careless drafting; rather, it makes basic drafting requisites such as grammar and consistency all the more vital. In creating the patent system, Congress placed the responsibility for precise, lucid drafting on the applicant. 35 U.S.C. 112; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). An applicant cannot place a burden of resolving unnecessary complexities on all subsequent readers when correction is readily available through amendment. Cf. Topliff, 145 U.S. at 171 (endorsing reissue as a cure to inevitable mistakes in claims).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Melnik 11/104,793 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER SHALLENBERGER, JULIE A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Collins et al 11/586,816 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER GATLING, STACIE D
3644 Ex Parte Abbas 11/974,390 GREENHUT 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER
SMITH, KIMBERLY S
3662 Ex Parte Troxell et al 10/975,264 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
3685 Ex Parte White et al 11/005,716 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D
3693 Ex Parte METZ 11/456,196 CRAWFORD 103(a) PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW EXAMINER KRAMER, JAMES A
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Pau et al 10/516,946 ADAMS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Yasuoka et al 10/743,745 WARREN 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
1762 Ex Parte Mahl et al 10/874,374 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PRAXAIR, INC. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte McArdle 10/988,460 LUCAS 103(a) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER
ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Martinez et al 10/613,433 NAPPI 103(a) Carmen Pili Ekstrom EXAMINER
MAYO III, WILLIAM H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Leichter 10/549,091 CRAWFORD 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER
AN, IG TAI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Corcoran et al 11/413,767 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PACKARD, BENJAMIN J
1627 Ex Parte Diorio et al 11/642,509 GRIMES 103(a) 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER KAROL, JODY LYNN
1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K
1642 Ex Parte Santin et al 11/248,702 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) 112(1)/103(a) COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C. EXAMINER GODDARD, LAURA B
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/494,581 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SANZO, LLC EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/393,315 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/860,597 BAHR 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER LARSON, JUSTIN MATTHEW
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3723 Ex Parte 6364302 et al 95/000,195 09/896,083 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) For Third Party Requester: YOUNG BASILE For Patent Owner: SAMUEL W. APICELLI DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al 95/001,163 10/376,935 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b) PATENT OWNER: SOFER & HAROUN LLP. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER BARNIE, REXFORD N
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN PART & REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3505 Ex Parte 5566913 et al 90/010,056 & 90/010,078 08/455,386 DELMENDO 103(a) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROBERT G. WOOLSTON, ESQ. PERKINS COIE LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER BRIAN M. BERLINER, ESQ. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J original EXAMINER PUROL, SARAH L
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leonard 10/821,278 FREDMAN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Crabtree et al 10/479,070 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER QIAN, YUN
1733 Ex Parte Kangas et al 11/666,903 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH
1771 Ex Parte Monaghan et al 10/535,487 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) RODMAN RODMAN EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Grandy et al 09/927,972 DANG 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER BLACK, LINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Malik et al 11/082,703 ROBERTSON Concurring TORCZON 103(a) Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R
Patent specifications and claims have long been said to "constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy". Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892). This difficulty does not, however, justify
careless drafting; rather, it makes basic drafting requisites such as grammar and consistency all the more vital. In creating the patent system, Congress placed the responsibility for precise, lucid drafting on the applicant. 35 U.S.C. 112; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). An applicant cannot place a burden of resolving unnecessary complexities on all subsequent readers when correction is readily available through amendment. Cf. Topliff, 145 U.S. at 171 (endorsing reissue as a cure to inevitable mistakes in claims).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Melnik 11/104,793 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER SHALLENBERGER, JULIE A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Collins et al 11/586,816 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER GATLING, STACIE D
3644 Ex Parte Abbas 11/974,390 GREENHUT 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER
SMITH, KIMBERLY S
3662 Ex Parte Troxell et al 10/975,264 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
3685 Ex Parte White et al 11/005,716 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D
3693 Ex Parte METZ 11/456,196 CRAWFORD 103(a) PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW EXAMINER KRAMER, JAMES A
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
lockwood, advanced display, zenon, modine, festo, lovin
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Wiley 10/622,634 PAK 103(a) Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I
1785 Ex Parte Hsia et al 11/265,031 GARRIS 102(b) PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C
1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/521,898 NAGUMO 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/386,097 MORGAN 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hakala et al 10/492,045 KIM 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ERICSSON INC. EXAMINER ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Almberg 10/225,203 BAHR 103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Curtius et al 10/583,636 HANLON 101/103(a) 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3713 Ex Parte 6344791 et al 95/000,217 and 95/000,222 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA First Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Second Requester v. Patent of ANASCAPE, LTD. PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA MICHAEL J. KEENAN NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER JONES, SCOTT E
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON
Where a textual description of an embodiment is absent, a showing that the missing description would have been obvious does not suffice. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.”).
“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The standard is whether one reasonably skilled in the art would understand the application as describing with sufficient particularity the material to be incorporated. Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (applying the Advanced Display standard and concluding that the material incorporated by reference was not the detail at issue but a separate and distinct element of the invention from that argued). Every concept of the incorporated patent is not necessarily imported. See Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]ncorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent”), overruled on other grounds by Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/157,893 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B
1781 Ex Parte Bijl et al 10/343,863 FREDMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
We are not persuaded. Appellants have not specifically identified which limitations of claim 24 are not taught by the prior art. See In re Lovin, 2011 WL 2937946, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011) (appellant waived arguments for separate patentability by merely pointing out claim limitations and asserting the prior art did not disclose the limitations).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Ellson et al 11/198,045 ADAMS 103(a) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Wiley 10/622,634 PAK 103(a) Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I
1785 Ex Parte Hsia et al 11/265,031 GARRIS 102(b) PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C
1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/521,898 NAGUMO 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/386,097 MORGAN 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hakala et al 10/492,045 KIM 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ERICSSON INC. EXAMINER ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Almberg 10/225,203 BAHR 103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Curtius et al 10/583,636 HANLON 101/103(a) 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3713 Ex Parte 6344791 et al 95/000,217 and 95/000,222 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA First Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Second Requester v. Patent of ANASCAPE, LTD. PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA MICHAEL J. KEENAN NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER JONES, SCOTT E
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON
Where a textual description of an embodiment is absent, a showing that the missing description would have been obvious does not suffice. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.”).
“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The standard is whether one reasonably skilled in the art would understand the application as describing with sufficient particularity the material to be incorporated. Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (applying the Advanced Display standard and concluding that the material incorporated by reference was not the detail at issue but a separate and distinct element of the invention from that argued). Every concept of the incorporated patent is not necessarily imported. See Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]ncorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent”), overruled on other grounds by Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/157,893 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B
1781 Ex Parte Bijl et al 10/343,863 FREDMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
We are not persuaded. Appellants have not specifically identified which limitations of claim 24 are not taught by the prior art. See In re Lovin, 2011 WL 2937946, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011) (appellant waived arguments for separate patentability by merely pointing out claim limitations and asserting the prior art did not disclose the limitations).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Ellson et al 11/198,045 ADAMS 103(a) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
hedges, klosak, aoyama
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/693,454 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Condon 11/060,332 DESHPANDE 103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID
2443 Ex Parte Rodman et al 10/032,766 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nikodym 10/376,185 HORNER 103(a) THOMPSON HINE LLP EXAMINER
ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
The Examiner appears to have impermissibly picked the disclosure of antimony from Kimoto without consideration of what the totality of the disclosure in Kimoto would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (citations omitted)).
Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
3764 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/430,655 O’NEILL Concurring BARRETT 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Radnedge et al 11/075,059 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Rettig et al 10/588,678 DANG 102(b)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER ASSOUAD, PATRICK J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Reuteler et al 10/532,528 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,430 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,422 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Muldermans et al 10/518,985 WARREN 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,684 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1,2,4)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL
An inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
1781 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/944,929 HANLON 103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER
DEES, NIKKI H
1782 Ex Parte Plourde et al 11/127,879 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) Dennis M. Flaherty, Esq.
Ostrager Chong Flaherty & Broitman P.C. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK
We agree with Appellants that the interpretation of claims 1, 4, and 20, a matter of law, is the first step in determining whether these claims are anticipated as a matter of fact. See, e.g., In re Aoyama, No. 2010-1552, 2011 WL 3796243, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2011) and cases cited therein.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bixby et al 10/945,653 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M
2171 Ex Parte Farn 11/121,654 DANG 102(e)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 10/619,161 DANG 102(e) HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EXAMINER LIPMAN, JACOB
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Virolainen et al 10/465,909 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER BRINEY III, WALTER
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/693,454 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Condon 11/060,332 DESHPANDE 103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID
2443 Ex Parte Rodman et al 10/032,766 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nikodym 10/376,185 HORNER 103(a) THOMPSON HINE LLP EXAMINER
ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
The Examiner appears to have impermissibly picked the disclosure of antimony from Kimoto without consideration of what the totality of the disclosure in Kimoto would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (citations omitted)).
Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
3764 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/430,655 O’NEILL Concurring BARRETT 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Radnedge et al 11/075,059 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Rettig et al 10/588,678 DANG 102(b)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER ASSOUAD, PATRICK J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Reuteler et al 10/532,528 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,430 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,422 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Muldermans et al 10/518,985 WARREN 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,684 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1,2,4)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL
An inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
1781 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/944,929 HANLON 103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER
DEES, NIKKI H
1782 Ex Parte Plourde et al 11/127,879 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) Dennis M. Flaherty, Esq.
Ostrager Chong Flaherty & Broitman P.C. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK
We agree with Appellants that the interpretation of claims 1, 4, and 20, a matter of law, is the first step in determining whether these claims are anticipated as a matter of fact. See, e.g., In re Aoyama, No. 2010-1552, 2011 WL 3796243, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2011) and cases cited therein.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bixby et al 10/945,653 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M
2171 Ex Parte Farn 11/121,654 DANG 102(e)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 10/619,161 DANG 102(e) HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EXAMINER LIPMAN, JACOB
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Virolainen et al 10/465,909 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER BRINEY III, WALTER
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)