1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1715 Ex Parte Halleriet et al 10/915,980 KRATZ103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I
1741 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11/398,261 OWENS102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA
1773 Ex Parte Duerr 10/848,396 KRATZ103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3682 Ex Parte Verma et al 10/875,726 PETRAVICK103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3745 Ex Parte Schmaling et al11/292,647 GREENHUT103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3686 Ex Parte Schoenberg 10/825,352 FETTING112(2)/103(a)103(a) King & Spalding LLP (Trizetto Customer Number) EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3769 Ex Parte Gross et al 10/100,231 KAUFFMAN112(2)/102(b)/103(a)112(2) AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2828 Ex Parte Ujazdowski et al11/095,976DANG103(a)Cymer Inc./MPG, LLP EXAMINER HAGAN, SEAN P
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3747 Ex Parte O'FLYNN et al12/016,500GREENHUT103(a)Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER HAMAOUI, DAVID E
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1741 Ex Parte Watkinson 10/598,398 KRATZ103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER FRANKLIN, JODI C
1787 Ex Parte Fugitt et al 12/326,430 WARREN112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION EXAMINER ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A
While it is entirely appropriate to rely on another reference to clarify a fact in the anticipating reference, see, e.g., In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562, 197 USPQ 1, 4 (CCPA 1978), the supporting reference must in fact accomplish that purpose.
2600 Communications 2625 Ex Parte Reese et al 10/458,888 RUGGIERO102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1781 Ex Parte Rosset 10/363,261 NAGUMO103(a)103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3686 Ex Parte Banfield et al11/366,397 JEFFERY112(2)/103(a)103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER PAULS, JOHN A
It is well settled that where, as here, the indefinite article “a” or “an” means “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We recognize, however, that “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3729 Ex Parte Babb et al 11/605,381 KAUFFMAN102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 2827 Ex Parte 6504103 et al 90/008,306 08/821,760COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant EASTHOM102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER PALADINI, ALBERT WILLIAM
The new products in the field or otherwise displayed or marketed would have served as a guide to the brochure in an analogous fashion to a card catalog, leading “persons interested” in the product to the brochure. Cf. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (properly classified, indexed or abstracted document renders it sufficiently accessible to “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art”).
Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128 Appellant also complains that the Examiner relies on “speculative modeling premised on unstated assumptions in drawings.” (App. Br. 16 (citing, inter alia, Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148-49 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .) But Application of Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) indicates that if a prohibitive scaling rule does apply, it normally applies to patent drawings, and not “shop drawings,” because “[o]rdinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.” AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 2831 Ex Parte 6984791 et al95/000,208 10/412,683COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant v. THOMAS & BETTS CORP. Requestor EASTHOM102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel c/o Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER NINO, ADOLFO
REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3301 Ex Parte 5417691 et al Ex parte SMITH AND NEPHEW, INC. Appellant 90/009,307 08/048,922 SONG102(b)/ obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: HANCOCK HUGHEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEPHEN A. SOFFEN DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1657 Ex Parte Okamoto et al10/548,541 FREDMAN112(2)/112(1) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SAUCIER, SANDRA E
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1745 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11/596,256GAUDETTE103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N
2600 Communications 2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/807,636 DANG103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER HUYNH, NAM TRUNG
Monday, November 14, 2011
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1618 Ex Parte Misiak et al 11/257,049 MILLS102(a,e)/102(b)/103(a) Loctite Corporation EXAMINER ROGERS, JAMES WILLIAM
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1645 Ex Parte Borodic et al 11/046,721 WALSH103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER FORD, VANESSA L
However, the enablement requirement does not require definitive data. Instead,
a specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.
In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971) (emphasis in original).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1762 Ex Parte Heslop et al10/492,754 OWENS102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2814 Ex Parte Lieber et al 10/812,653 BLANKENSHIP103(a) Harvard University & Medical School c/o Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2434 Ex Parte Eldridge et al 10/995,004 WINSOR102(b)/103(a)102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TABOR, AMARE F
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3633 Ex Parte Schrunk 10/900,831 HOELTER103(a)103(a) LEMAIRE PATENT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER FONSECA, JESSIE T
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)3711 Ex Parte 5775995 et al Ex parte ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 90/009,523 & 90/010,663 COCKS102(b)/103(a)/112(1) PATENT OWNER: DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JOSEPH T. JAKUBEK KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2105 Ex Parte 6155906 et alAMANDA MAY, Appellant and Patent Owner v. WACOAL AMERICA, INC., Respondent and Third Party Requester 95/000,065 LANE102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b)/103(a) TOLER LAW GROUP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R originally OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAINGER, QUANA MASHELL AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1641 Ex Parte Nasarabadi et al 11/159,008 SCHEINER112(1) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER YANG, NELSON C
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2456 Ex Parte Ansari et al 10/766,164 MANTIS MERCADER103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3724 Ex Parte Newby et al 10/413,623 BROWN103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1611 Ex Parte Greff 10/068,812 GRIMES102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D
1612 Ex Parte Torney et al 10/939,206 GRIMES103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER MAEWALL, SNIGDHA 2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2112 Ex Parte Von Wendorff 10/491,072 DIXON112(2)/101/102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D 2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2442 Ex Parte Mostafa 10/149,639 WHITEHEAD, JR.102(e)/103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK
2445 Ex Parte Boehme et al 10/024,118 LUCAS102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction: Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . .2111.03, 2138.05, 2163 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2836 Ex Parte Theiler 10/521,931 MANTIS MERCADER103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3694 Ex Parte Singhal 09/891,913 KIM103(a)103(a) Tara Chand Singhal EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1767 Ex Parte Gertzmann et al 11/784,643 McKELVEY103(a)/provisional double patenting CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2122 Ex Parte Fu 11/342,086 LUCAS102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER GAMI, TEJAL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2471 Ex Parte Reinold et al 09/943,882 COURTENAY102(e)/103(a) Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D
See Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3687 Ex Parte Abbasi et al11/005,683 KIM103(a) SPRINT EXAMINER GORT, ELAINE L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3761 Ex Parte Minoguchi et al 10/836,892 SAINDON112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/414,743 TIMM102(b) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M
See In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The scope of a patent's claims determines what infringes the patent; it is no measure of what it discloses. A patent discloses only that which it describes, whether specifically or in general terms, so as to convey intelligence to one capable of understanding.”).
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1619 Ex Parte Kanikanti et al 11/762,831 McCOLLUM103(a) 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER KASSA, TIGABU
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2443 Ex Parte Minhazuddin et al10/261,914 DILLON103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1767 Ex Parte Wilson et al11/578,983 GUEST103(a) The Dow Chemical Company EXAMINER SCOTT, ANGELA C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2177 Ex Parte Aggarwal et al10/041,141 JEFFERYdissenting DIXONres judicata/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V
When Appellants submit new affidavits not considered previously to make a new record, thus presenting different questions of patentability, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply “even if the claims are viewed as identical to those in the prior case.”In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 1230 (CCPA 1971).
Russell, In re, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(w) 2600 Communications 2612 Ex Parte Meyers et al 10/955,345 DANG103(a) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3657 Ex Parte Prescott11/128,035 SPAHN102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1716 Ex Parte Faguet et al 11/094,461 GAUDETTE concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part TIMM 112(2)/102(a)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT
1781 Ex Parte Thomas 11/161,034 MILLS103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3635 Ex Parte Crostic 11/455,219 HORNER103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3752 Ex Parte Cohen 11/474,692 GREENHUT103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1615 Ex Parte Frandsen et al 10/499,673 McCOLLUM103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) James C Wray EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S
2600 Communications 2626 Ex Parte Hamza et al 10/208,453 BAUMEISTER103(a)103(a) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER HAN, QI
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3667 Ex Parte Ginsberg 09/955,594 KIM101/103(a)102(b)/103(a) INNOVATION DIVISION CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1721 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/677,142 TIMM102(b)/103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2115 Ex Parte Watts 11/137,055 DIXON103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER CAO, CHUN
2128 Ex Parte Bernstein et al 10/023,235 ZECHER112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FREDERICK W. GIBB, III Gibb Intellectual Property Law Firm, LLC EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH
2163 Ex Parte Christensen et al 10/848,901 HOMEREobviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER VY, HUNG T
2600 Communications 2617 Ex Parte Frank et al 10/387,249 DILLON103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER KARIKARI, KWASI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2837 Ex Parte Abe et al11/219,759 DROESCH103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3635 Ex Parte Crostic 11/455,219 HORNER103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R
3654 Ex Parte Davis 11/618,859 HORNER103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER MANSEN, MICHAEL R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3724 Ex Parte Luxton 11/337,759 LEBOVITZ103(a) The Gillette Company EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F
Friday, November 4, 2011
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1633 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11/583,223 FREDMAN103(a) Armstrong Teasdale LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2185 Ex Parte Ryu 10/997,199 MANTIS MERCADER102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER DILLON, SAMUEL A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2439 Ex Parte Chuah et al 10/232,660 DESHPANDE103(a) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3767 Ex Parte Mogensen et al 11/031,635 SPAHN103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3769 Ex Parte Martin et al 10/653,403 McCARTHY103(a) 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
AFFIRMED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 11/040,163 JEFFERY103(a) LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY EXAMINER FLETCHER, MARLON T
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2162 Ex Parte Knox et al 10/662,009 WINSOR103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3769 Ex Parte Peyman 11/189,044 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1627 Ex Parte Petzelt et al 11/650,211 FREDMAN102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1788 Ex Parte Schalk et al 11/239,727 McKELVEY112(1)/103(1) 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DUCHENEAUX, FRANK D
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn has called attention to the issues which arise when "new" words are used in a claim. Linn, Perspectives on Becoming a Successful Examiner, 91 J. Pat. & Tm. Office Soc'y 418, 421 (N0. 6 June 2009) (In case after case before my court, the central debate revolves around the meaning of claim terms that, for example, were added during prosecution and do not appear anywhere in the written description. For those cases, the meaning of the claim limitation has to be inferred from other words, leaving the issue open to unnecessary dispute and leading frequently to protracted and costly litigation.)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3737 Ex Parte Roose 10/748,316 SAINDON112(1)/103(a) 112(1) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
3777 Ex Parte Kuth et al 10/231,311 BAHR102(b)/103(a)obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER CHAO, ELMER M REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3632 Ex Parte 6478274 et al Ex parte INNOVATIVE OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. 90/010,689 09/405,628COCKS103(a)103(a) PATENT OWNER: DESIGN IP, P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NEXSEN PRUER, LLC EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER BAXTER, GWENDOLYN WRENN
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1657 Ex Parte Isayama 10/840,354 FREDMAN103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2441 Ex Parte Chu et al10/252,815 TURNER 103(a) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3716 Ex Parte Hunter et al 10/207,631 BAHR103(a) WEISS & MOY PC EXAMINER HSU, RYAN REHEARING
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3623Ex Parte Mosbrucker 10/744,951 FETTING103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1761 Ex Parte Evans10/629,642 GAUDETTE 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD EXAMINER OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS
See In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, a district court must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.”).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3629 Ex Parte Ichikawa et al 10/102,344 FETTING 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER CASLER, TRACI AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2189 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/147,137 HAHN 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. EXAMINER LO, KENNETH M REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2831 Ex Parte 5,763,831 et al Ex parte TayMac Corporation 90/008,823 08/450,559 COCKS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: BOOTH UDALL, PLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WILLIAM F. PENDERGAST BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER PATEL, DHIRUBHAI R AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1646 Ex Parte Dowling et al 11/016,106 McCOLLUM101/112(1) MERCK EXAMINER LI, RUIXIANG
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2455 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 10/671,905 MANTIS MERCADER102(e)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3622 Ex Parte Katz et al 10/451,845 FETTING112(2)/102(E)/103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2161 Ex Parte Heiman et al 09/823,079 CHEN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE
2175 Ex Parte Bhogal et al 11/189,889 COURTENAY102(e)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L
2185 Ex Parte Roberson et al 10/969,648 HOMERE103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2421 Ex Parte Ackley et al 10/859,732 COURTENAY102(e)/103(a) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
2462 Ex Parte Krishnamurthi et al 10/454,685 NAPPI103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER WU, JIANYE
2600 Communications 2622 Ex Parte Chatenever et al 10/034,273 HOFF103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER HENN, TIMOTHY J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3688 Ex Parte Speiser et al 11/405,209 CRAWFORD102(b)/103(a) YAHOO! INC. C/O Ostrow Kaufman LLP EXAMINER DAGNEW, SABA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3716 Ex Parte Penzias11/286,702 ASTORINO103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K
3761 Ex Parte Butsch et al 11/059,977 ASTORINO102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
3761 Ex Parte Leinsing 11/061,290 SCHAFER102(b)/103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
3762 Ex Parte Bradley et al 11/096,662 ASTORINO103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER GETZOW, SCOTT M
3767 Ex Parte Mogensen et al10/813,214 SPAHN102(b)/103(a) Heidi A. Dare BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
3767 Ex Parte Mogensen et al 10/687,568 SPAHN102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
3767 Ex Parte Woo 10/685,809 CLARKE103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER ANDERSON, MICHAEL J
3781 Ex Parte Schlatter 10/623,588 BAHR103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1634 Ex Parte Michael11/436,718 LEBOVITZ102(B)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP EXAMINER FORMAN, BETTY J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2161 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11/088,583 KRIVAK103(a)103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, HUNG D
2171 Ex Parte Erman 11/174,114 KRIVAK103(a)103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D
2175 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/850,399 POTHIER 102(b)/103(a)102(b)/103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2476 Ex Parte Hjartarson et al 09/810,938 DANG102(e)/103(a) Clements Bernard PLLC EXAMINER LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2884 Ex Parte Mueller 11/085,859 BLANKENSHIP103(a) 103(a) Coherent, Inc. c/o Morrison & Foerster LLP EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3693 Ex Parte Kramer et al10/219,941 KIM103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER NORMAN, SAMICA L
3693 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/219,453 KIM103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER NORMAN, SAMICA L REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 1742 Ex Parte 6074454 et al Ex parte STEVEN E. ROBBINS 90/010,402 08/678,776 GUEST103(a)103(a) PATENT OWNER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: GENE S. WINTER ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS LLC original EXAMINER JENKINS, DANIEL J AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1616 Ex Parte Ronchi et al 10/971,231 ADAMS103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M
1624 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/243,623 MILLS103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting ASTRA ZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP EXAMINER BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN
1628 Ex Parte Aylor et al 11/526,410 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT B. AYLOR EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
1632 Ex Parte Bevis et al 10/844,064 SCHEINERobviousness-type double patenting ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP EXAMINER FALK, ANNE MARIE
Generally, a “one-way” test has been applied to determine obviousness-type double patenting. Under that test, the examiner asks whether the application claims are obvious over the patent claims. In a recent case, with unusual circumstances, however, this court instead applied a “two-way” test. See Braat, [937 F.2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991)]. Under the two-way test, the examiner also asks whether the patent claims are obvious over the application claims. If not, the application claims later may be allowed. Thus, when the two-way test applies, some claims may be allowed that would have been rejected under the one-way test . . . The essential concern was to prevent rejections for obviousness-type double patenting when the applicants filed first for a basic invention and later for an improvement, but, through no fault of the applicants, the PTO decided the applications in reverse order of filing, rejecting the basic application although it would have been allowed if the applications had been decided in the order of their filing.
* * * . . . Since Braat, many patent applicants facing an obviousnesstype double patenting rejection under the one-way test have argued that they actually are entitled to the two-way test. The two-way test, however, is a narrow exception to the general rule of the one-way test. . . . Nevertheless, the notion survives that in certain unusual circumstances, the applicant should receive the benefit of the two-way test. The question then is: when? In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The two-way exception can only apply when the applicant could not avoid separate filings, and even then, only if the PTO controlled the rates of prosecution to cause the later filed species claims to issue before the claims for a genus in an earlier application. Id. at 1435.
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1721 Ex Parte Kamoto 11/484,732 KIMLIN103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D
1724 Ex Parte Li et al09/971,284 COLAIANNI103(a) SAILE ACKERMAN LLC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
1725 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 11/451,873 SMITH103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC
1798 Ex Parte FitzPatrick 10/612,196 SMITH102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2111 Ex Parte Land10/702,257 DANG102(e)/103(a) Chen Yoshimura LLP EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
2172 Ex Parte Kahan et al 09/832,828 DANG103(a) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M
2172 Ex Parte Uthe et al 10/811,541 KOHUT103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER WONG, WILLIAM
2182 Ex Parte DeGroot 10/496,506 CHANG103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER SORRELL, ERON J
2188 Ex Parte McGlew et al 11/044,260 WHITEHEAD, JR.103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, HONG CHONG
2197Ex Parte Chase et al 10/426,231 WINSOR101/102(e) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, RONGFA PHILIP
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2483 Ex Parte Carlbom et al 10/403,443 GONSALVES103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J
2492 Ex Parte Zacharla et al 11/501,389 JEFFERY101/102(e)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER KIM, TAE K
2600 Communications 2618 Ex Parte Palin et al 10/773,287 ZECHER103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU
2627 Ex Parte Hoelsaeter 10/976,968 SMITH112(2)/102(e)/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN LLP EXAMINER WATKO, JULIE ANNE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3633 Ex Parte Glazer et al 11/064,718 ASTORINO 112(2)/103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3772 Ex Parte Perez-Cruet 11/500,542 LEBOVITZ 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC MI4 SPINE, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1777 Ex Parte Leaman 11/162,320 SMITH103(a) Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN
GRANTED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,056 HAHN103(a)103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3724 Ex Parte 7000325 et al 95/001,130 Bunzl Processor Distribution LLC, Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of Bettcher Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Respondent ROBERTSON103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN
