scott, IPXL, liebel-flarsheim

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Evans 11/612,152 GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER PATEL, KIRAN B

3671 Ex Parte Dumlao et al 10/858,254 O’NEILL 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

The Examiner’s reliance on In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016 (CCPA 1963) appears to lack a full appreciation of the case. The CCPA disagreed with the Patent Office’s logic that if there appears to exist a “functional equivalence,” it follows that the claim is obvious. Id. at 1019. The CCPA held that it does not follow that the use of one core over the other core would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the references before the Examiner, even though the expedients could be considered functionally equivalent to each other. Id. at 1019-20. The CCPA found that the Patent Office’s logic appears to be based on hindsight of the art after having the full benefit of the Appellant’s disclosure. Id. at 1020.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Saho 10/754,742 O’NEILL 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER TRINH, MINH N

3761 Ex Parte Felt et al 11/530,131 O’NEILL 103(a) CaridianBCT, Inc. EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/771,309 O’NEILL 103(a) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/637,616 FREDMAN 103(a) Constellation Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“Because claim 25 recites both a system and the method for using that system, it does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.”)

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . 2173.05(p)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Lehto 10/978,598 KRIVAK 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Waugh 11/458,407 GREENHUT 103(a) MAIER & MAIER, PLLC EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

3677 Ex Parte Detsis 11/220,209 BAHR 102(b) ROGER M. RATHBUN EXAMINER LAVINDER, JACK W
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Leung et al 11/206,245 GARRIS 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Grunschlager et al 11/171,122 KAUFFMAN 102(e)/103(a) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER LARYEA, LAWRENCE N

See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim).

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). .2111.01

venner, leapfrog

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Rauser et al 10/994,004 FREDMAN 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

1631 Ex Parte Kai 11/587,346 WALSH 103(a) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) EXAMINER BORIN, MICHAEL L
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Tachibana et al 10/902,879 OWENS 103(a) Edwards Neils PLLC EXAMINER DESAI, ANISH P

2163 Ex Parte Halcrow et al 11/165,448 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Kumhyr et al 11/014,564 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

2172 Ex Parte BYBEE et al11/462,738 JEFFERY 102(e) Street & Steele-IBM Corporation EXAMINER GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Bandhauer 10/977,190 STAICOVICI 103(a) PEDERSEN & COMPANY, PLLC EXAMINER SOTOMAYOR, JOHN B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Molter et al 11/182,686 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Michael B. McMurry EXAMINER RICHMAN, GLENN E
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Chuang et al 11/216,666 HAHN 102/103(a) 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Sharrow 10/375,634 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Nelson et al 10/953,987 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) BEMIS COMPANY, INC. EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Zheng et al 11/809,664 JEFFERY 103(a) HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP EXAMINER MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S

And even if we were to assume that claim 1’s automatic functionality somehow precludes any manual activity whatsoever (which it does not for the reasons noted above), it is well settled that where, as here, merely providing an automatic means to replace manual activity to accomplish the same result (i.e., executing an application and completing a set of test features) is an obvious improvement. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). Nor have Appellants shown that automatically performing these functions in lieu of at least some manual interaction would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01
2167 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/932,709 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2175 Ex Parte Stoner et al 10/725,505 JEFFERY 102(b) VERIZON EXAMINER TRAN, MYLINH T

2179 Ex Parte Moesgaard Kjeldsen et al 10/957,123 HOMERE 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LO, WEILUN

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/289,048 BROCKETTI 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,002 BAHR 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG
REHEARING

DENIED

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

atofina, schauman, costello

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Price 10/627,166 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

The Examiner is also directed to Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999-1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006), wherein the Federal Circuit explained that a finding of overlapping ranges alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof within the purview of § 102. In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978).

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.03

Schauman, In re, 572 F.2d 312, 197 USPQ 5 (CCPA 1978) . . . 706.02(m), 2131.02, 2144.08

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Si et al 11/231,312 SIU 103(a) Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

2177 Ex Parte Fernstrom 11/013,368 DIXON 103(a) Xerox Corporation EXAMINER FABER, DAVID

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Haller 11/824,929 HORNER 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER SWINEHART, EDWIN L
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2624 Ex Parte 7424133 et al PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Patent Owner, Appellant v. GEOSPAN CORPORATION Requester, Respondent 95/001,110 SIU 103(a) PATENT OWNER DUNLAP CODDING, P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER CARTER, AARON W

“[I]n order to overcome a prior art reference . . . appellants must either satisfy the substantive requirements of Rule 131 or establish that the relevant disclosure describes their own invention.” In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Costello, In re, 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . 716.10, 2136.05, 2137, 2138, 2138.04, 2138.05
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Fidelis et al 10/378,492 ADAMS 112(2)/102(b) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER DEJONG, ERIC S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte JANG et al 11/758,754 HORNER 103(a) HOSOON LEE EXAMINER ADAMS, GREGORY W
REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2155 Ex Parte 6601104 et al Ex parte REALTIME DATA LLC. 90/009,428 09/266,394 SIU 102(b) For Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC For Third Party Requester MCDERMOTT, WILL, & EMERY LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Baer et al 10/752,431 ASTORINO 103(a) Patrick G. Burns GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Elce et al 11/324,738 OWENS 112(1)/102(b) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Perroni et al 11/261,131 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C. EXAMINER RUIZ, ARACELIS

fracalossi

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kaeppeler 11/284,987 GAUDETTE 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T

1729 Ex Parte Otis et al 10/833,974 OWENS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH

1761 Ex Parte Bitler 11/199,049 OWENS 103(a) Axiom Global Inc. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

1777 Ex Parte Tonkovich et al 11/089,440 GAUDETTE 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte PATERA et al 11/834,776 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Poo et al 09/898,365 WINSOR 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) WHITE & CASE LLP EXAMINER GELAGAY, SHEWAYE

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Volle et al 11/630,498 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas Inc EXAMINER SELLERS, ROBERT E

After all, we note that lack of novelty is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (“Though the composition might have been obvious, though not anticipated, it cannot have been anticipated and not have been obvious. Thus evidence establishing lack of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness.”).

1775 Ex Parte Tamaoki et al 11/114,242 GAUDETTE 102(e)/103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

odetics

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hershberger 10/758,997 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1618 Ex Parte KLUNK et al 12/046,070 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
REHEARING

DENIED

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

In the Request, Appellants allege that, in view of Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Decision improperly found “Froese’s algorithms are only similar in function to Appellant’s special purpose computer and are not identical in function.” (Request 4.) (Emphasis in original.)

In Odetics, the Federal Circuit instructs that a limitation recited in “means-plus function” format covers only structure which performs the identical function recited in the limitation and which is identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure described in the specification. Odetics, 185 F.3d at 1267. Equivalency is an issue of fact determined by assessing whether the prior art structure performs the recited function in substantially the same way as the corresponding structure so as to produce substantially the same result. Id.

Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 51 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . 2183, 2184

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

strick

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Hayward 10/415,021 SAADAT 102(e) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER EXAMINER SMITHERS, MATTHEW

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Atkins 11/069,512 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/670,981 MOORE 103(a) 103(a) Clifford C. Dougherty, III McAFEE & TAFT EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED-IN-PART; AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3636 Ex Parte 6296304 et al ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC. Requester and Appellant v. TOFASCO OF AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,031 COCKS 314/103(a) 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WASSERMAN, COMDEN & CASSELMAN, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FLOYD B. CHAPMAN WILEY REIN & FIELDING, LLP EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER NELSON JR, MILTON

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 5830237 et al Ex parte THE OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant 90/009,268 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 JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 7137158 et al Ex parte REGALO INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/009,499 SONG 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner: Robert J. Jacobsen PA Third Party Requester: Finnegam. Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T original EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 6952846 et al Ex parte REGALO INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/009,500 SONG 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROBERT J. JACOBSON, PA THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRET & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T original EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 7178184 et al Ex parte REGALO INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/009,498 SONG 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Patent Owner: Robert J. Jacobson, PA FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRET & DUNNER LLPEXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T original EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Matheus et al 10/588,458 SCHEINER 103(a)/112(2) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER KAUFMAN, CLAIRE M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/091,212 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER STITT, ERIK V

2187 Ex Parte Meng 10/750,423 BLANKENSHIP 112(1) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

The full scope of the claimed invention must be enabled. The rationale for this statutory requirement is straightforward. Enabling the full scope of each claim is “part of the quid pro quo of the patent bargain.” A patentee who chooses broad claim language must make sure the broad claims are fully enabled. “The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement” to “ensure[ ] that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.” Strick v. Dreamworks, 516 F.3d 993, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kraft et al 09/832,434 WINSOR 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE / YAHOO! OVERTURE EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Minamihara et al 10/771,060 SAADAT 103(a) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOODWIN, DAVID J

herr, KCJ, pitney bowes

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Jimenez Mayorga et al 10/555,286 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1631 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11/172,492 PRATS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP(Medtr Minimed) EXAMINER RIGGS II, LARRY D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte KARAMI et al 11/781,543 McCOLLUM 103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1772 Ex Parte Siskin et al 11/256,728 WARREN 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M

In the Reply Brief, Appellants submit that the “new and more extensive record on the present application” makes “irrelevant” the Examiner’s determination that the claimed processes in the prior and present Appeals are “essentially equivalent.” Reply Br. 1, citing and quoting In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 611 (CCPA 1967) (the issue in any appeal is whether appellant is entitled to allowance of the claims “in the application and record” on appeal).

Herr, In re, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(w)
1778 Ex Parte Dart et al 11/545,393 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Trivedi 10/097,934 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Fuccello et al 11/001,436 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Blodgett et al 11/872,628 BARRETT 112(1) INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Frauhammer et al 11/157,019 BAHR 103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Kuebelbeck 10/592,017 SMITH 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1766 Ex Parte Rappoport et al 11/478,455 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Sabiers et al 10/387,614 TURNER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Kilroy et al 11/298,438 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HOANG, ANN THI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Ravikumar et al 11/462,049 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FEENEY, BRETT A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Perez 11/533,075 LEBOVITZ 103(a) 112(1) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER LU, JIPING

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1773 Ex Parte 7090906 et al ANEMOSTAT PRODUCTS and TECHNICAL GLASS PRODUCTS Requesters and Respondents v. Patent of O’KEEFFE’S, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,010, 95/001,020 & 90/010,016 10/238,115 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JONES DAY FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NICHOLAS J. TUCCILLO McCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ROBERT F. SCOTTI KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER CHEN, VIVIAN

The term “a” is an indefinite article which is customarily interpreted to mean “at least one,” permitting the inclusion of additional elements which are not recited in the claim. See KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1111 Ex Parte 6219674 et al Ex parte CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,638 08/184,900 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. FOR THE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES B. MONROE FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BANANKHAH, MAJID A original EXAMINER SKAPARS, ANTHONY

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 7291182 et al Ex parte OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant 90/009,310 09/121,300 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, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ohmi et al 10/363,640 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1732 Ex Parte Gulevich et al 10/594,780 KIMLIN 103(a) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER
QIAN, YUN

1747 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/860,742 HANLON 103(a) John D. DeLong The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1762 Ex Parte Kirchmeyer et al 10/627,162 COLAIANNI concurring NAGUMO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

1764 Ex Parte Meng et al 11/841,466 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

1771 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/873,714 HANLON 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER
TOOMER, CEPHIA D

1771 Ex Parte Chambard et al 10/947,093 FRANKLIN 103(a) Infineum USA L.P. EXAMINER OLADAPO, TAIWO

1778 Ex Parte Haase 10/413,849 WARREN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) RICHARD A. HAASE (INVENTOR) EXAMINER HRUSKOCI, PETER A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/257,802 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAUL L

2177 Ex Parte Gibson 10/366,091 KRIVAK 103(a) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2181 Ex Parte Claseman 10/846,724 POTHIER 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER DEWS, BROOKE J

2185 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11/357,473 KRIVAK 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN

2186 Ex Parte Nobunaga et al 11/042,256 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Negishi et al 09/931,577 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, P.L.L.C EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lurkens et al 10/509,410 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

2811 Ex Parte Kavalieros et al 11/581,183 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, MEIYA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kalley et al 10/093,460 DANG 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sawyer 11/395,994 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

“If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . 2111.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Purcell et al 10/648,590 McCARTHY 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ROANE, AARON F

orthopedic, etter, rembrandt, invitrogen, ICON

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Tamura 10/540,816 GRIMES 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC EXAMINER MATTISON, LORI K

1644 Ex Parte Plouet et al 10/530,893 SCHEINER 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M

1657 Ex Parte Burkinshaw et al 11/181,677 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) O'KEEFE, EGAN, PETERMAN & ENDERS LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

“There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference. Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted); see also, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859-60 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc) (“the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole”) (citations omitted).

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . 716.04
Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/229,840 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Hayashi et al 10/576,421 KRATZ 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, CLAIRE LOUISE

1742 Ex Parte Meerman et al 10/500,713 KRATZ 112(1)/132 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

1761 Ex Parte Fernholz et al 11/257,874 HANLON 103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1782 Ex Parte Morris 11/098,228 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

1784 Ex Parte Laird et al 11/898,557 WARREN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Cheshire et al 10/877,414 HUGHES 102(b) PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Sweeney et al 11/385,903 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER LE, KAREN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Bodlaender 10/502,153 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Philips Electornics North America Corporation EXAMINER UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Mansfield Jr. 10/501,141 CRAWFORD 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER STAMBER, ERIC W

3674 Ex Parte Burdick et al 11/539,216 McCARTHY 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

3689 Ex Parte Heimke et al 10/984,634 CRAWFORD 112(1)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 10/908,165 McCARTHY 102(b) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER ROST, ANDREW J

3753 Ex Parte Palin et al 11/536,696 PATE III 103(a) Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P.C./Sikorsky EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

3761 Ex Parte Bobroff et al 10/798,060 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choo et al 11/449,745 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Levy 10/602,549 POTHIER 102(e) 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

However, reciting both an apparatus and the method of using the apparatus renders a claim indefinite under § 112, second paragraph. See Rembrandt Data Tech., L.P. v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2171 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/484,646 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kasriel et al 10/128,598 RUGGIERO 102(e) 102(e) NORTH OAKS PATENT AGENCY EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Alkemper et al 11/096,406 CRAWFORD 101/102(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER TROTTER, SCOTT S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,232 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2662 Ex Parte 6985494 et al J2 GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent v. BEAR CREEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,030 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MIELE LAW GROUP, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex Parte 6933608 et al Ex parte KAIJO CORPORATION Appellant 90/007,861, 90/008,629 and 90/010,340 BOALICK 305/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SNELL & WILMER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SoCAL IP LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER TRAN, MAI HUONG C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3657 Ex Parte 7559414 B2 et al SHIMANO INC. Requester and Respondent v. SCRAM LLC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,309 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) Third Party Requester: DELAND LAW OFFICE Patent Owner: SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C. EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

The closest support we can find for Shimano’s position is the doctrine of “prosecution disclaimer” or “prosecution history estoppel” where statements made by a Patent Owner during prosecution of the patent can limit the scope of the claim, once issued in a patent. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories Inc., 429 F3d 1052, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, during reexamination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood in the context of the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d at 1379. The estoppel or disclaimer doctrine does not operate in the same way during reexamination proceedings.

Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 77 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Panchev et al 10/496,322 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Vladimir Panchev Marieta Pancheva Adelina Suvandjieva EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1635 Ex Parte Roberts et al 09/972,245 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/077,995 KRATZ 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1744 Ex Parte Monk et al 11/726,964 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, EDMUND H

1765 Ex Parte Maziers 10/512,388 HANLON 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LU, C CAIXIA

1774 Ex Parte Smith 11/495,406 SMITH 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER SORKIN, DAVID L

1786 Ex Parte Elschner et al 10/910,042 SMITH 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hoover et al 10/155,723 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Melillo 10/836,814 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Lee 12/000,576 COURTENAY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER WILSON, ALLAN R

2818 Ex Parte FUKURO et al 11/533,370 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/102(b) RABIN & Berdo, PC EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gerberding 10/063,937 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3761 Ex Parte Steger et al 11/118,893 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

uniroyal, smith1, translogic, simpson, polyvision

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/501,072 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1717 Ex Parte Theodorus van Esbroeck et al 09/865,180 PAK 103(a) JOHN S. PRATT, ESQ KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE

1726 Ex Parte Yandrasits et al 11/170,456 WARREN 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN

1728 Ex Parte Kelly et al 11/253,069 COLAIANNI 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER DAM, DUSTIN Q

1742 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/687,471 TIMM 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1772 Ex Parte Farshid et al 10/702,751 COLAIANNI 103(a) CHEVRON CORPORATION EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D

1776 Ex Parte Glad et al 11/570,530 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Perthou 09/752,015 OWENS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO

Thus, the Examiner has not established that even if the references were combined as proposed by the Examiner, the Appellants’ claimed invention would result. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

3674 Ex Parte Ueda 11/074,695 McCARTHY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Whited 11/358,176 PATE III 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

3727 Ex Parte Koenig 10/692,703 PATE III 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3746 Ex Parte Oo et al 10/927,556 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HAMO, PATRICK

3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/315,278 COCKS 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3781 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/101,932 ADAMS 103(a)/obvious-type double patenting BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

We agree with Appellants that the two-way test is the proper standard for making a determination of obviousness-type double-patenting on this record (see App. Br. 18-22; see also Ex parte Smith et al., (BPAI Nov. 17, 2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Guenther et al 11/732,617 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Gage 10/072,531 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H

2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,639 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,531 HAHN 103(A)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Shum et al 10/286,396 PATE III 103(a) 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,538 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Kolter et al 10/096,835 SCHEINER 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T

1634 Ex Parte Lee 11/957,334 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte SAMOILOV 11/752,477 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

1729 Ex Parte Fereshtehkhou et al 11/091,223 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1741 Ex Parte Fazlani 11/268,286 COLAIANNI 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTE concurring NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1763 Ex Parte Kinney et al 11/281,006 MILLS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

1772 Ex Parte Merrill et al 11/515,539 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D

1784 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11/768,955 GUEST 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global LEE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/148,967 KRIVAK concurring MacDONALD 103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Pihlajamaki et al 10/899,322 HUGHES 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH

2467 Ex Parte Rabie et al 10/868,568 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B

2854 Ex Parte Roland 10/576,031 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E

A flexible teachings, suggestions, or motivations (TSM) test remains the primary guarantor against a non-statutory hindsight analysis. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s the Supreme Court suggests, a flexible approach to the TSM test prevents hindsight and focuses on evidence before the time of invention.”).

The TSM test, flexibly applied, merely assures that the obviousness test proceeds on the basis of evidence-teachings, suggestions (a tellingly broad term), or motivations (an equally broad term)-that arise before the time of invention as the statute requires. As KSR requires, those teachings, suggestions, or motivations need not always be written references but may be found within the knowledge and creativity of ordinarily skilled artisans.”

Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Metz et al 11/037,644 HOFF 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER GARCIA, JOANNIE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Spelman 09/814,210 KAUFFMAN 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

3632 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/941,231 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Michael B. McNeil Liell & McNeil Attorneys PC EXAMINER LE, TAN

3651 Ex Parte Guldenfels et al 10/567,634 LEE 103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A

3657 Ex Parte Scheckelhoff et al 11/347,389 BROWN 103(a) 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hugick et al 11/139,830 PATE III 112(2)/103(a) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP EXAMINER ADDISU, SARA

A trademark simply does not function in this manner. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982).

...
Appellants cite PolyVision Corp. v. Smart Technologies Inc., 501 F.Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007). App. Br. 10. In that case, the District Court declined to follow Simpson, admitting that it acted to preserve the validity of patent claims at issue, in spite of the Court’s inclination to conclude that the reference to the Windows® trademark rendered the claims indefinite. Id. at 1065. The Court stated it was following “the Federal Circuit’s admonition to construe claims so as to sustain their validity, if possible.” Id. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, while the patent owner argued that the trademark was used as an adjective rather than as a noun, the court expressly rejected this argument, as do we.

3766 Ex Parte MacAdam et al 11/120,633 PATE III 103(a) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER GEDEON, BRIAN T
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Recker et al 10/888,542 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
REMANDED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Moehlenbruck et al 10/543,931 SCHEINER obviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE