omega

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Kumar T.K. et al 11/800,317 GRIMES 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Henning 12/124,249 GUEST 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Han 10/844,817 WINSOR 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte DaCosta et al 10/723,778 DESHPANDE 112(1)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Jeon et al 10/864,499 ROBERTSON 103(a) LEE & MORSE, P.C. EXAMINER
WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Maulden et al 11/688,389 HORNER 103(a) Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Noyes 11/206,598 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) PATRICK R. SCANLON
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3715 Ex Parte Bardige et al 11/099,077 KIM 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA EXAMINER
HU, KANG

3777 Ex Parte Oliver et al 10/646,222 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Bagley et al 11/314,984 POTHIER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HOCKER, JOHN P

2183 Ex Parte Jourdan et al 09/749,405 DESHPANDE 102(b)/103(a) Gerbera/BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5577100 et al Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,064 TURNER 112(1)/102(e)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON, PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER MAUNG, NAY AUNG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Wijlaars et al 10/564,674 ADAMS 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER HELM, CARALYNNE E

1628 Ex Parte Yankner et al 11/232,844 SCHEINER 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER ZAREK, PAUL E

1636 Ex Parte Gellman et al 11/482,638 PRATS 102(b) Intellectual Property Dept./Dewitt Ross & Stevens EXAMINER GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M

1656 Ex Parte Yang et al 11/095,802 ADAMS 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER TSAY, MARSHA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Yu et al 10/664,503 HASTINGS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Errico 09/819,126 COURTENAY 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

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). (citations omitted).

2451 Ex Parte Emerson et al 10/037,501 DILLON 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick et al 10/675,916 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/119,720 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) CUMMINS, INC. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

otto, thibault, kumar, stepan

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Zimran et al 11/343,313 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Bernier 10/224,780 DANG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Omar 11/095,887 GRIMES 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Hacker et al 11/701,228 FETTING 103(a) James P. Broder Roeder & Broder LLP EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

3716 Ex Parte Mothwurf et al 10/991,308 PETRAVICK 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Grenier et al 11/490,319 FRANKLIN 103(a)/112(2) ERAGEN BIOSCIENCES, INC. EXAMINER LU, FRANK WEI MIN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/832,322 DIXON 103(a)/103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

2176 Ex Parte Errico et al 10/155,269 BARRY 103(a)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Peterka et al 10/882,606 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP EXAMINER MOLINA, ANITA C

"[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115
Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Britto et al 10/274,301 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) Eric S. Britto True Bounce, Inc. EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S
REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al JINGLE NETWORKS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. GRAPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/001,163 TURNER 314(a)/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
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Kahn et al 11/315,391 MILLS 103(a) Amersham Biosciences Corp EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

1636 Ex Parte Kenten et al 10/726,069 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KETTER, JAMES S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Fournier et al 10/740,584 GUEST 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/338,972 PRATS 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Banavar et al 10/434,815 COURTENAY 102(e) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER VU, THONG H

2159 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/334,615 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER BURKE, JEFF A

2168 Ex Parte Yan et al 11/096,165 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2191 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/870,222 LUCAS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER NAHAR, QAMRUN

“In a series of opinions, both this court and our predecessor court, the United States Court of Customs & Patent Appeals (“Patent Court”), have recognized that if the appellant has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Board's actual basis of rejection, the administrative validity proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) should be allowed to continue. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1367–68 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing numerous Patent Court cases).” In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Reith et al 10/472,326 DROESCH 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER REZA, MOHAMMAD W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11/228,583 FETTING 103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BROWN, ALVIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Huber et al 10/535,067 McCARTHY 103(a) Merchant & Gould, P.C. EXAMINER COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT

cybersource

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Charneau et al 11/250,616 PRATS 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF SALVATORE ARRIGO AND SCOTT LEE, LLP EXAMINER BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Rudolf et al 10/334,806 BLANKENSHIP 112(2)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Kao et al 10/661,793 JEFFERY 102(e) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Cook et al 10/942,569 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Hallman 11/186,649 HORNER 103(a) Floyd B. Carothers CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3768 Ex Parte 7734325 et al CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. CARESTREAM HEALTH, INC. Patent Owner 95/001,379 SONG 103(a) EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER GUPTA, VANI

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2613 Ex Parte 7369772 et al Inter Partes FUJITSU LIMITED Requestor, Appellant v. TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,485 EASTHOM 102/103 For Patent Owner: Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto For Third Party Requester: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLPEXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SEDIGHIAN, REZA
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Faunce et al 10/955,742 SMITH 103(a) Steven W. Roth IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LE, HUNG D

2166 Ex Parte Turba et al 10/293,780 KOHUT 102(e) UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B

2177 Ex Parte Wolfston et al 10/890,881 DESHPANDE 103(a) MICHAEL O. SCHEINBERG EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Fano et al 10/826,227 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) Vedder Price PC EXAMINER PENG, FRED H

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Kaus et al 10/488,433 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a)/101 Daniel J Piotrowski
US Philips Corporation EXAMINER VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Bayne 11/871,992 FISCHETTI 103(a) ANTHONY JEREMIAH BAYNE EXAMINER DASS, HARISH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Emori 10/697,157 SAINDON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER LIM, SENG HENG
REHEARING

GRANTED

2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H

Furthermore, and separately, in CyberSource our reviewing Court stated that “[r]egardless of what statutory category (‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

schulze, cole

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Kloeb et al 11/557,203 OWENS 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER BROWN II, DAVID N

1764 Ex Parte Siol 11/997,239 GUEST 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11/079,785 HORNER 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/227,283 COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER LOVEL, KIMBERLY M

“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)). Because Appellants have not pointed to specific enabling support in the Specification, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position.

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Cole, In re, 326 F.2d 769, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164.06(c)

2183 Ex Parte Keck et al 10/326,425 POTHIER 103(a) ZAGORIN O'BRIEN GRAHAM LLP (1001) EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Arbogast et al 11/530,452 KAUFFMAN 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W
DISMISSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Stein et al 10/813,587 HASTINGS 102(b)/112(2)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER TURK, NEIL N
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3711 Ex Parte 5688174 et al Ex parte VEGAS AMUSEMENT, INC. 90/011,023 08/540,328 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SCHAAF, JAMES CHARLES
REHEARING

GRANTED

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

NTP, medichem, woodland trust, borden, optivus

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hansen 11/595,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/737,124 MACDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Roginsky et al 09/999,643 POTHIER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers et al 10/216,821 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Goicoechea et al 09/977,826 COCKS 112(1) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/172,021 GAUDETTE 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1736 Ex Parte KURATA et al 12/130,179 GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,659 GAUDETTE 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id. It has long been the case that an inventor’s allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient—an alleged date of invention must be corroborated. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[E]vidence is assigned probative value and collectively weighed to determine whether reduction to practice has been achieved.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170. “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id.

In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,853 GAUDETTE 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/425,647 HOMERE concurring BLANKENSHIP obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
REHEARING

GRANTED

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

See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

hogan

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Cai et al 11/852,433 GRIMES 112(1) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER COUGHLIN, MATTHEW P

A later state of the art cannot be relied on as evidence that a claimed invention was not enabled as of its filing date. See In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 606 (CCPA 1977) (“Appellants disclosed, as the only then existing way to make [the claimed ‘solid polymer’], a method of making the crystalline form. To now say that appellants should have disclosed in 1953 the amorphous form which on this record did not exist until 1962, would be to impose an impossible burden on inventors and thus on the patent system.”).

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124, 2164.05(a)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Krull et al 11/858,944 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1781 Ex Parte Bartkowska et al 11/867,223 SMITH 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1781 Ex Parte Ishida et al 11/090,076 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Sartain et al 11/217,102 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER DONDERO, WILLIAM E

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/112,926 MILLS 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Samuels et al 12/017,241 McKELVEY 102(b) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KHAN, TAHSEEN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/252,438 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BASHORE, WILLIAM L

2185 Ex Parte Parkinson 10/939,274 SMITH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER YU, JAE UN
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Groezinger 10/591,198 PAK 103(a) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

belinne, graf

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Sollars 10/696,757 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

3671 Ex Parte Eubanks et al 11/061,966 GREENHUT 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER TORRES, ALICIA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Halamoda et al 10/753,874 McCARTHY 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG H

3761 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/011,085 PRATS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3761 Ex Parte Ohba et al 10/360,726 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Kurohashi et al 11/286,644 FREDMAN 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte de Buzzaccarini et al 11/799,791 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte LeClair et al 11/089,300 BARRY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) TRAN & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER TRIMMINGS, JOHN P

Here, the Examiner makes the following "specific fact finding," Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), ... For their part, the Appellants do not address these findings. ... This argument puzzles us. It "do[es] not . . . explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error." Belinne, at *4.

"Obviousness is not to be determined on the basis of purpose alone." In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774 (CCPA 1965).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Paterson et al 10/646,233 BARRETT 103(a) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER GRAHAM, GARY K
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Cofino et al 11/113,457 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

lovin, borden

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Erhan et al 11/717,524 WALSH 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER CARR, DEBORAH D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Yilmaz et al 11/397,974 FREDMAN 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER YAO, LEI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Dinger et al 10/711,956 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that interpreting 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) to require a more substantive argument than a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach limitation in order to address a claim separately, is not an unreasonable interpretation of the rule). Additionally, any arguments not presented are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/815,038 NAPPI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN LLP EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Pan 11/592,471 GRIMES 103(a) 103(a) POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP ATTN: JANET E. REED, PH.D. EXAMINER KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

1654 Ex Parte West et al 11/129,941 McCOLLUM 112(2)/102(b) 102(b) Paul R. Morico Baker Botts L.L.P. EXAMINER HA, JULIE

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Weisman 10/954,039 HASTINGS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Sakamoto 11/508,160 MacDONALD 102(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LE, THANH TAM T

ormco, callaway, hewlett-packard

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/358,102 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN
REEXAMINATION

REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al MICROSOFT CORP. Requester and Respondent v. GARY ODOM, Patent Owner and Appellant Odom v. Microsoft 95/001,208 11/125,276 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner Third Party Requester ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al Ex parte GARY ODOM, Appellant 90/009,703 11/125,276 SIU 102(b) 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) Patent Owner Gary Odom Third Party Requester McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/651,447 WALSH 103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

See, e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1309-20 (Fed. Cir 2007). In Ormco Corp,
the Court held that when dependent claims “were found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious.” In Ormco, “[dependent] claims 10 and 17 . . . were invalid as obvious” but independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 10 and 17 depended, had not been determined to be obvious. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause claims 10 and 17 were found to have been obvious, the broader claims 1 and 11 must also have been obvious.” Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319. See also, Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness”) citing Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319.

1637 Ex Parte Hantash et al 11/588,184 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HORLICK, KENNETH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Bobee et al 11/558,711 GARRIS 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

1765 Ex Parte Slack 11/654,960 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,680 11/887,683 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Elnozahy et al 11/551,168 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) Jack V. Musgrove EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bouchard et al 10/029,679 WINSOR 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir, 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . .2114
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ming et al 11/133,007 PAK 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

uniroyal, bosies

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Weber 11/126,424 COLAIANNI 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1716 Ex Parte Moriya et al 10/166,303 GARRIS 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1778 Ex Parte Nishiyama et al 11/242,893 PAK 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

See, e.g., Uniroyal, Inc., v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Even when the applied prior art references were combined as proposed, no obviousness can be established if the claimed subject matter would not result from the proposed combination.)

Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 5 USPQ2d 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.08

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Chan et al 09/755,863 CHEN 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER VAUGHN, GREGORY J

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Lai 11/191,921 DANG 102(e)/103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER TORRES, MARCOS L

2629 Ex Parte Garfio et al 11/018,008 STEPHENS 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER SHAPIRO, LEONID

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Weber et al 10/918,841 ASTORINO 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER EVANS, GEOFFREY S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Russ et al 10/253,115 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SALCE, JASON P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Meyer 11/352,464 BAHR 102(b) 102(b) GRAYBEAL JACKSON LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-42 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the preponderance of the evidence standard requires the finder of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence).

3643 Ex Parte Baumann 11/296,405 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3673 Ex Parte Murphy 11/322,638 HORNER 103(a) 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER KELLEHER, WILLIAM J
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED; § 41.50(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3732 Ex Parte 6,375,659 et al Ex parte ORTHOVITA, INC. Appellant 90/010,652 09/788,930 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTEONICS - SOB;VITA Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER PHILOGENE, PEDRO
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte HOSHINO et al 11/850,784 GREEN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

1625 Ex Parte Halazy et al 10/381,200 MILLS 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANG, CELIA C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Gaag et al 11/809,575 SMITH 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER IP, SIKYIN

1766 Ex Parte Phelan et al 11/148,104 ROBERTSON 103(a) CIBA VISION CORPORATION EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S

1767 Ex Parte Matsuoka et al 12/110,494 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

1777 Ex Parte Kent et al 10/961,077 SMITH obviousness-type double patenting/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1787 Ex Parte Achten et al 10/866,888 HASTINGS 103(a) LANXESS CORPORATION EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Landgraf 10/470,430 CHEN 103(a) Striker Striker & Stenby EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L

2168 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/316,246 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TRAN, ANHTAI V

2171 Ex Parte McKeon et al 10/916,715 JEFFERY 102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 10/778,494 DANG 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER FEATHERSTONE, MARK D

2451 Ex Parte Saito et al 09/984,741 DILLON 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte STORZ 09/330,856 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAI V

2628 Ex Parte Maeng 11/438,829 BAUMEISTER 101/103(a) Kelly K. Kordzik Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, KEE M

2629 Ex Parte Ditzik 11/023,361 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER BODDIE, WILLIAM

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Drobny et al 11/173,695 HAHN 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER HSIEH, HSIN YI

2878 Ex Parte Ehrenberg et al 11/529,961 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER BUI PHO, PASCAL M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Hessel et al 11/195,734 MOHANTY 101/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Dacey 10/486,963 HOELTER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER FERNSTROM, KURT

3736 Ex Parte Fulton et al 10/943,434 MILLS 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

3765 Ex Parte Mahoney 11/087,055 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) Kenneth P. Glynn EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D
REHEARING

DENIED

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