REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte ASAOKA 12/174,973 PAK 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEYSON, JOSEPH S
1747 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12/277,883 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H
1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/245,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
1773 Ex Parte Ricci et al 10/581,964 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER SAKELARIS, SALLY A
Based on these facts, we determine that the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim that provides completeness to the claim and thus must be considered a limitation of the claim. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976) (citing Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951)).
Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
1783 Ex Parte Conner et al 11/891,433 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KHATRI, PRASHANT J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/926,548 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) Roland W. Norris Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,429 ASTORINO 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN
3734 Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/867,498 WALSH 103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D
3737 Ex Parte Fymat et al 11/524,866 GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL
3782 Ex Parte Katchko et al 11/107,340 GREENHUT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/135,045 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
In an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.’” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (brackets in original)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-88.
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 Ex Parte 6192347 et al Ex parte Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,556 09/134,451 TURNER 101/102(e) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D
To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed.Cir.2000), citing In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973). A “mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything.” Id. at 674 (emphasis in original).
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Chinea et al 11/189,139 McKELVEY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I
1715 Ex Parte Wojtaszek et al 12/050,709 GARRIS 103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
1716 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/673,376 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN
1731 Ex Parte Shore et al 11/142,580 COLAIANNI 103(a) ENGELHARD CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A
Citing to In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972), Appellants’ arguments seem to take issue with the picking and choosing needed to arrive at the claimed invention (Reply Br. 3). However, this line of argument appears to improperly treat the rejection as an anticipation rejection. The rejection on appeal is under § 103 and is based on whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. The court in Arkley recognized that picking and choosing is entirely proper in an obviousness rejection. Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-588.
1745 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/580,219 KRATZ 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A
1772 Ex Parte DiMagno et al 10/890,588 PER CURIAM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G
1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,780 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR
1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,810 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Majumdar et al 11/000,695 POTHIER 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Zeng et al 10/635,526 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, TED M
2617 Ex Parte Chiang et al 10/136,002 Per Curiam 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Doucette et al 11/275,747 BARRETT 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
ortho-mcneil, pall corp, eiselstein, telecordia, intel
REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Goel et al 10/824,725 HOMERE 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Herron et al 10/888,883 JEFFERY 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte McClellan 11/361,422 FRANKLIN 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
3761 Ex Parte Swerev et al 11/444,714 PRATS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
3765 Ex Parte Fukunishi et al 10/565,836 SAINDON 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Perkins et al 10/085,927 JEFFERY 103(a) 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Fetherolf 10/086,908 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Holman et al 11/020,540 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/541,523 PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY
“The use of the word "about," avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, “the word „about‟ does not have a universal meaning in patent claims[;]” rather, “the meaning depends on the technological facts of the particular case.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The meaning of the word "about" is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art.”).
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)
Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 1302.01
1623 Ex Parte Hirofuji et al 10/536,397 MILLS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/007,225 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
“[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to an ordinary artisan.” Telcordia Techs., Inc. v Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the internal circuitry of an electronic device need not be disclosed in the specification if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to build and modify the device) (internal citation omitted)).
Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1537, 65 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . 2181
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Petri 10/901,596 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T
2174 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/013,239 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER KE, PENG
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tate et al 09/737,050 JEFFERY 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
2482 Ex Parte Sievers et al 10/798,519 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 10/449,789 HAHN 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B
2618 Ex Parte Durand et al 11/102,954 Per Curiam 102(e)/103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras LLP EXAMINER HANNON, CHRISTIAN A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/428,607 PER CURIAM 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/059,836 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D
3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/921,715 FREDMAN 103(a) Robert L. McDowell EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/084,568 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting ROBERT L. McDOWELL EXAMINER HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Goel et al 10/824,725 HOMERE 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Herron et al 10/888,883 JEFFERY 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte McClellan 11/361,422 FRANKLIN 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
3761 Ex Parte Swerev et al 11/444,714 PRATS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
3765 Ex Parte Fukunishi et al 10/565,836 SAINDON 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Perkins et al 10/085,927 JEFFERY 103(a) 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Fetherolf 10/086,908 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Holman et al 11/020,540 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/541,523 PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY
“The use of the word "about," avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, “the word „about‟ does not have a universal meaning in patent claims[;]” rather, “the meaning depends on the technological facts of the particular case.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The meaning of the word "about" is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art.”).
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)
Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 1302.01
1623 Ex Parte Hirofuji et al 10/536,397 MILLS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/007,225 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
“[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to an ordinary artisan.” Telcordia Techs., Inc. v Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the internal circuitry of an electronic device need not be disclosed in the specification if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to build and modify the device) (internal citation omitted)).
Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1537, 65 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . 2181
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Petri 10/901,596 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T
2174 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/013,239 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER KE, PENG
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tate et al 09/737,050 JEFFERY 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
2482 Ex Parte Sievers et al 10/798,519 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 10/449,789 HAHN 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B
2618 Ex Parte Durand et al 11/102,954 Per Curiam 102(e)/103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras LLP EXAMINER HANNON, CHRISTIAN A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/428,607 PER CURIAM 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/059,836 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D
3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/921,715 FREDMAN 103(a) Robert L. McDowell EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/084,568 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting ROBERT L. McDOWELL EXAMINER HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES
Friday, February 17, 2012
aoyama, golight, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, larson, default proof, prater, biomedino, donaldson
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B
2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M
3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.
Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH
1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R
1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P
1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181
Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that
[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B
2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M
3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.
Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH
1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R
1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P
1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181
Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that
[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
Thursday, February 16, 2012
brummer, orthokinetics
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Pierpont et al 10/295,518 KRATZ 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN
1746 Ex Parte Girshovich et al 11/197,114 HASTINGS 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Dornbusch et al 10/691,212 SAADAT 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C
Finally, we observe that the Examiner’s reliance (see Ans. 20-26) on the decision in Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), is misplaced. The Board found in Brummer that because the evidence of record showed no known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what size rider a particular bicycle was “designed for” and whether a particular bicycle was covered by that claim. Id. at 1655. However, determining the definiteness of a claim depends on the facts involved. In the present appeal, the facts are closer to what was at issue in Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986), where the front leg portion of a wheelchair was so dimensioned as to be insertable between the doorframe of an automobile and the seat thereof. Id. at 1575. Appellants’ claim 1 recites the separation between the first and the second terminal pairs to be such that an input-to-output isolation attenuation therebetween is “not less than a first stopband attenuation of the first external filter.” As such, when the external filter is selected, its first stopband attenuation would also be known. Therefore, it does not render the claim indefinite, but merely gives the scope of the claim some breadth.
Brummer, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(b)
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Yamashita 11/040,182 SAINDON 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, MONICA L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Swenson et al 10/786,725 ADAMS 103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T
3739 Ex Parte Long 10/986,602 WALSH 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
3785 Ex Parte Zaffetti et al 11/281,137 BROWN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER LEO, LEONARD R
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Smith 10/544,154 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M
1623 Ex Parte Hilfinger 10/972,729 GRIMES 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1627 Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/079,089 GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Dahlmann et al 11/535,335 GARRIS 103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
1727 Ex Parte Kejha et al 10/516,986 PER CURIAM 103(a) Zachary T Wobensmith III EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Even et al 10/362,382 FRAHM 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Jhingan 10/687,896 FETTING 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER CLARK, DAVID J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/295,280 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
3761 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/837,251 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Pierpont et al 10/295,518 KRATZ 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN
1746 Ex Parte Girshovich et al 11/197,114 HASTINGS 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Dornbusch et al 10/691,212 SAADAT 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C
Finally, we observe that the Examiner’s reliance (see Ans. 20-26) on the decision in Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), is misplaced. The Board found in Brummer that because the evidence of record showed no known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what size rider a particular bicycle was “designed for” and whether a particular bicycle was covered by that claim. Id. at 1655. However, determining the definiteness of a claim depends on the facts involved. In the present appeal, the facts are closer to what was at issue in Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986), where the front leg portion of a wheelchair was so dimensioned as to be insertable between the doorframe of an automobile and the seat thereof. Id. at 1575. Appellants’ claim 1 recites the separation between the first and the second terminal pairs to be such that an input-to-output isolation attenuation therebetween is “not less than a first stopband attenuation of the first external filter.” As such, when the external filter is selected, its first stopband attenuation would also be known. Therefore, it does not render the claim indefinite, but merely gives the scope of the claim some breadth.
Brummer, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(b)
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Yamashita 11/040,182 SAINDON 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, MONICA L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Swenson et al 10/786,725 ADAMS 103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T
3739 Ex Parte Long 10/986,602 WALSH 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
3785 Ex Parte Zaffetti et al 11/281,137 BROWN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER LEO, LEONARD R
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Smith 10/544,154 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M
1623 Ex Parte Hilfinger 10/972,729 GRIMES 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1627 Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/079,089 GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Dahlmann et al 11/535,335 GARRIS 103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
1727 Ex Parte Kejha et al 10/516,986 PER CURIAM 103(a) Zachary T Wobensmith III EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Even et al 10/362,382 FRAHM 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Jhingan 10/687,896 FETTING 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER CLARK, DAVID J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/295,280 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
3761 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/837,251 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
rohm and haas
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lo et al 11/475,627 MILLS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kneafsey et al 11/003,958 HASTINGS 103(a) Loctite Corporation EXAMINER BERNSHTEYN, MICHAEL
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Dent 11/671,624 HOFF 102(e) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
2617 Ex Parte Dillon 10/676,211 HOFF 103(a) General Motors Corporation EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Dinh 10/943,739 HORNER 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D
3637 Ex Parte Jones 10/767,131 GREENHUT 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kernosky 11/161,462 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
3779 Ex Parte McCullagh et al 11/030,229 GRIMES 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER HENDERSON, RYAN N
3779 Ex Parte Scheller et al 10/586,018 FRANKLIN 102(b) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER HENDERSON, RYAN N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Litovitz et al 11/346,179 PRATS 102(b) 102(b) Vedder Price, PC EXAMINER FERNANDEZ, SUSAN EMILY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/392,054 JEFFERY 103(a) 103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Sander et al 12/481,555 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) Treyz Law Group EXAMINER SUTHERS, DOUGLAS JOHN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Schmitt 11/387,678 KIM 103(a) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER PATEL, NEHA
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3662 Ex Parte 6417801 et al GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester 95/001,377 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER BLUM, THEODORE M
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s decision to credit Dr. Peterson’s testimony over that of Dr. Braasch, as nothing requires a fact finder to credit the inadequately explained testimony of an expert. See Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2317 Ex Parte 5617539 et al Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,020 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H original EXAMINER DINH, DUNG C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 09/952,032 MILLS 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Honda et al 10/985,543 TIMM 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C. EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
1761 Ex Parte Hou et al 10/985,745 PER CURIAM 103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER FEELY, MICHAEL J
1776 Ex Parte WU et al 11/959,508 KATZ 103(a) WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 0750 EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte DiFalco et al 10/328,530 DANG 103(a) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER NALVEN, ANDREW L
2451 Ex Parte Quittek et al 10/294,768 SIU 103(a) vSUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Sands et al 10/122,635 FRAHM 103(a) RYNDAK & SURI LLP EXAMINER BLOUNT, ERIC
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Raravikar et al 11/477,267 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER JAGAN, MIRELLYS
2893 Ex Parte Metz et al 10/877,232 RUGGIERO 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER REAMES, MATTHEW L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11/713,960 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lo et al 11/475,627 MILLS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kneafsey et al 11/003,958 HASTINGS 103(a) Loctite Corporation EXAMINER BERNSHTEYN, MICHAEL
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Dent 11/671,624 HOFF 102(e) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
2617 Ex Parte Dillon 10/676,211 HOFF 103(a) General Motors Corporation EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Dinh 10/943,739 HORNER 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D
3637 Ex Parte Jones 10/767,131 GREENHUT 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kernosky 11/161,462 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
3779 Ex Parte McCullagh et al 11/030,229 GRIMES 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER HENDERSON, RYAN N
3779 Ex Parte Scheller et al 10/586,018 FRANKLIN 102(b) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER HENDERSON, RYAN N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Litovitz et al 11/346,179 PRATS 102(b) 102(b) Vedder Price, PC EXAMINER FERNANDEZ, SUSAN EMILY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/392,054 JEFFERY 103(a) 103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Sander et al 12/481,555 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) Treyz Law Group EXAMINER SUTHERS, DOUGLAS JOHN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Schmitt 11/387,678 KIM 103(a) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER PATEL, NEHA
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3662 Ex Parte 6417801 et al GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester 95/001,377 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER BLUM, THEODORE M
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s decision to credit Dr. Peterson’s testimony over that of Dr. Braasch, as nothing requires a fact finder to credit the inadequately explained testimony of an expert. See Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2317 Ex Parte 5617539 et al Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,020 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER WOOD, WILLIAM H original EXAMINER DINH, DUNG C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 09/952,032 MILLS 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Honda et al 10/985,543 TIMM 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C. EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
1761 Ex Parte Hou et al 10/985,745 PER CURIAM 103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER FEELY, MICHAEL J
1776 Ex Parte WU et al 11/959,508 KATZ 103(a) WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 0750 EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte DiFalco et al 10/328,530 DANG 103(a) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER NALVEN, ANDREW L
2451 Ex Parte Quittek et al 10/294,768 SIU 103(a) vSUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Sands et al 10/122,635 FRAHM 103(a) RYNDAK & SURI LLP EXAMINER BLOUNT, ERIC
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Raravikar et al 11/477,267 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER JAGAN, MIRELLYS
2893 Ex Parte Metz et al 10/877,232 RUGGIERO 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER REAMES, MATTHEW L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11/713,960 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
kerkhoven, yates, fessmann
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Helfman et al 11/037,977 McCOLLUM 103(a) RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P
1621 Ex Parte Karvinen et al 11/908,780 WALSH 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
Although Reinius did not describe using a catalyst complex based on a ligand mixture, the Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the individual ligands taught by Reinius et al in an[] effort to obtain a new ligand mixture that would be effective in increasing the selectivity to branched aldehyde products. In re Ker[k]hoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA, 1980).”
...
Finally, Appellants contend that factual differences make Kerkhoven inappposite, and “the legal conclusion as to patentability of the claimed process is more properly guided according to the circumstances outlined in In re Yates, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 [663 F.2d 1054] (CCPA 1981) than Ker[k]hoven.”
...
The rejection also relies on the general rule of the Kerkhoven case, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Appellants argue that Kerkhoven is inapposite, and “[h]ere, there is no combination of two compositions, but rather the creation of a catalytic complex from individual reactants (i.e., a rhodium complexed with two (or more) ligand reactants).” (App. Br. 5.)
...
Under these circumstances, we agree with Appellants that the Yates case provides useful guidance. In Yates, claims to a catalytic process had been rejected for obviousness based on idea that controlling the degree of conversion to optimize an acid-aldehyde ratio would have been obvious. In re Yates, 663 F.2d 1054, 1056 (CCPA 1981). The court agreed that the rejection had “the appearance of being founded on both logic and sound scientific principle.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Notwithstanding that appearance, the court explained that “obviousness cannot be established without considering the record as a whole,” and reversed after considering Yates’ data that controlling the degree of conversion was not recognized to be a result-effective variable. Id.
Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . 2144.06
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Nishino et al 11/473,334 TIMM 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Serban 10/553,657 HOMERE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STONE, ROBERT M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte ROYYURU 11/874,584 PETRAVICK 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keller 11/401,986 BAHR 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Wood et al 10/674,174 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN
The burden of proof on the PTO in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims is less than when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion. In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Ullestad et al 10/836,589 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER EISENBERG, REBECCA E
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex Parte 6607695 et al Ex parte Veltek Associates, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,290 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/093,149 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Neuman et al 10/326,863 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CONNOLLY, MARK A
2179 Ex Parte Craig et al 11/489,337 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HASSAN, RASHEDUL
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Martin et al 12/011,276 POTHIER 103(a) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M
2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/877,676 MacDONALD 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MISLEH, JUSTIN P
2624 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10/933,002 DILLON 103(a) Stephen B. Salai, Esq. Harter Secrest & Emery LLP EXAMINER ENTEZARI, MICHELLE M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kobetsky et al 11/067,965 SPAHN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH
3764 Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/902,820 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
3765 Ex Parte CHO 11/614,685 PER CURIAM 103(a) FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CLINE, SALLY COLSON
REHEARING
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Casion 11/304,026 DANG 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Helfman et al 11/037,977 McCOLLUM 103(a) RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P
1621 Ex Parte Karvinen et al 11/908,780 WALSH 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
Although Reinius did not describe using a catalyst complex based on a ligand mixture, the Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the individual ligands taught by Reinius et al in an[] effort to obtain a new ligand mixture that would be effective in increasing the selectivity to branched aldehyde products. In re Ker[k]hoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA, 1980).”
...
Finally, Appellants contend that factual differences make Kerkhoven inappposite, and “the legal conclusion as to patentability of the claimed process is more properly guided according to the circumstances outlined in In re Yates, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 [663 F.2d 1054] (CCPA 1981) than Ker[k]hoven.”
...
The rejection also relies on the general rule of the Kerkhoven case, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Appellants argue that Kerkhoven is inapposite, and “[h]ere, there is no combination of two compositions, but rather the creation of a catalytic complex from individual reactants (i.e., a rhodium complexed with two (or more) ligand reactants).” (App. Br. 5.)
...
Under these circumstances, we agree with Appellants that the Yates case provides useful guidance. In Yates, claims to a catalytic process had been rejected for obviousness based on idea that controlling the degree of conversion to optimize an acid-aldehyde ratio would have been obvious. In re Yates, 663 F.2d 1054, 1056 (CCPA 1981). The court agreed that the rejection had “the appearance of being founded on both logic and sound scientific principle.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Notwithstanding that appearance, the court explained that “obviousness cannot be established without considering the record as a whole,” and reversed after considering Yates’ data that controlling the degree of conversion was not recognized to be a result-effective variable. Id.
Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . 2144.06
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Nishino et al 11/473,334 TIMM 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Serban 10/553,657 HOMERE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STONE, ROBERT M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte ROYYURU 11/874,584 PETRAVICK 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keller 11/401,986 BAHR 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Wood et al 10/674,174 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN
The burden of proof on the PTO in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims is less than when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion. In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Ullestad et al 10/836,589 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER EISENBERG, REBECCA E
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex Parte 6607695 et al Ex parte Veltek Associates, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,290 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/093,149 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Neuman et al 10/326,863 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CONNOLLY, MARK A
2179 Ex Parte Craig et al 11/489,337 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HASSAN, RASHEDUL
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Martin et al 12/011,276 POTHIER 103(a) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M
2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/877,676 MacDONALD 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MISLEH, JUSTIN P
2624 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10/933,002 DILLON 103(a) Stephen B. Salai, Esq. Harter Secrest & Emery LLP EXAMINER ENTEZARI, MICHELLE M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kobetsky et al 11/067,965 SPAHN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH
3764 Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/902,820 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
3765 Ex Parte CHO 11/614,685 PER CURIAM 103(a) FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CLINE, SALLY COLSON
REHEARING
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Casion 11/304,026 DANG 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N
Monday, February 13, 2012
REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Bessette et al 11/903,846 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRAN N
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Anwar 11/034,906 BAHR 103(a) Patent Capital Group EXAMINER TYSON, MELANIE RUANO
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Levine et al 11/510,094 WALSH 103(a) ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Acernese et al 11/045,555 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/880,179 DANG 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER DEBNATH, SUMAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Pacey et al 10/223,519 PER CURIAM 112(1)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Bessette et al 11/903,846 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRAN N
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Anwar 11/034,906 BAHR 103(a) Patent Capital Group EXAMINER TYSON, MELANIE RUANO
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Levine et al 11/510,094 WALSH 103(a) ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Acernese et al 11/045,555 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/880,179 DANG 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER DEBNATH, SUMAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Pacey et al 10/223,519 PER CURIAM 112(1)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG
Friday, February 10, 2012
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Beers et al 11/010,890 GARRIS 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barth et al 10/285,931 THOMAS 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL (AMD) EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
2111 Ex Parte Moriwaki et al 10/431,461 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
2114 Ex Parte Bamford et al 10/831,413 COURTENAY 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN
2166 Ex Parte Christensen et al 10/848,748 SMITH 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
A claim limitation is presumed to invoke § 112, ¶6 when it explicitly uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” and includes functional language. That presumption is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Part 1, § III.C.3, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). If the claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6, the claim limitation must be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Id. at 7164.
2165 Ex Parte Hu et al 10/982,135 HOMERE 101/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
2173 Ex Parte Chapman 10/751,616 THOMAS 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Lindemann et al 11/520,946 LEE 103(a) Medtronic, Inc (Spinal/Krieg DeVault) EXAMINER COTRONEO, STEVEN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Alperin 11/399,584 HOMERE 102(b) 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Qwest Communications International Inc. EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Roscher et al 10/589,871 BONILLA 103(a) NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Tabata et al 10/713,355 SPAHN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER TRAN, DIEM T
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bohn et al
10/350,144 ZECHER 103(a)
1782 Ex Parte Dawes10/381,897 HANLON 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A
3622 Ex Parte Graves et al11/303,258 MOHANTY 103(a) LANDMARK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC EXAMINER VAN BRAMER, JOHN W
2166 Ex Parte Kress et al10/848,668 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
Ex Parte Kuecuek et al
11/658,062 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a)
Ex Parte Lee
10/976,384 CHEN 103(a)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Gulbenkian
10/370,634 GRIMES 103(a)
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte McConnell et al
09/832,718 MOHANTY 103(a)
Ex Parte Nelson
10/906,651 DESHPANDE 112(1)/103(a)
1788 Ex Parte O'Hara et al 10/987,131 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER DESAI, ANISH P
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Beers et al 11/010,890 GARRIS 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barth et al 10/285,931 THOMAS 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL (AMD) EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
2111 Ex Parte Moriwaki et al 10/431,461 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
2114 Ex Parte Bamford et al 10/831,413 COURTENAY 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN
2166 Ex Parte Christensen et al 10/848,748 SMITH 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
A claim limitation is presumed to invoke § 112, ¶6 when it explicitly uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” and includes functional language. That presumption is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Part 1, § III.C.3, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). If the claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6, the claim limitation must be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Id. at 7164.
2165 Ex Parte Hu et al 10/982,135 HOMERE 101/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
2173 Ex Parte Chapman 10/751,616 THOMAS 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Lindemann et al 11/520,946 LEE 103(a) Medtronic, Inc (Spinal/Krieg DeVault) EXAMINER COTRONEO, STEVEN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Alperin 11/399,584 HOMERE 102(b) 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Qwest Communications International Inc. EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Roscher et al 10/589,871 BONILLA 103(a) NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Tabata et al 10/713,355 SPAHN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER TRAN, DIEM T
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bohn et al
10/350,144 ZECHER 103(a)
1782 Ex Parte Dawes10/381,897 HANLON 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A
3622 Ex Parte Graves et al11/303,258 MOHANTY 103(a) LANDMARK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC EXAMINER VAN BRAMER, JOHN W
2166 Ex Parte Kress et al10/848,668 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) UNISYS CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
Ex Parte Kuecuek et al
11/658,062 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a)
Ex Parte Lee
10/976,384 CHEN 103(a)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Gulbenkian
10/370,634 GRIMES 103(a)
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte McConnell et al
09/832,718 MOHANTY 103(a)
Ex Parte Nelson
10/906,651 DESHPANDE 112(1)/103(a)
1788 Ex Parte O'Hara et al 10/987,131 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER DESAI, ANISH P
Thursday, February 9, 2012
levy, angstadt, vaeck, ariad
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Hwang et al 11/580,713 BARRY 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHILLIPS, III, ALBERT M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte McCrory et al 11/033,024 GREENHUT 102(b) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP EXAMINER PALO, FRANCIS T
What is lacking from the Examiner’s determinations of inherency is evidence or reasoning to show that the allegedly inherent feature or property must necessarily result from Mimura’s process or structure, respectively. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Levy, Ex parte, 17 USPQ2d 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112
3662 Ex Parte Martin et al 10/529,192 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) WesternGeco L.L.C. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Zhuang et al 11/390,696 OWENS 102(b) 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Jerding et al 10/957,849 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Mottier et al 10/815,724 STEPHENS 103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LAM, KENNETH T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Emery et al 10/749,602 PRATS 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Stux et al 11/307,367 PAK 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE
It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the [S]pecification is not enabling . . . Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This enablement requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the written description requirement of that provision. See, e.g., Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (“Since its inception, this court has consistently held that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement.”)
Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) . . . 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)
Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08
1727 Ex Parte MATSUI et al 11/979,403 HASTINGS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A
1781 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11/370,137 KATZ 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Rigoutsos 10/305,582 DIXON 101/102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LY, CHEYNE D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Ruiz et al 10/408,037 SIU 103(a) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Felbach 10/838,234 RUGGIERO 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEFF, MICHAEL R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Theel 10/668,049 KIM 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
3711 Ex Parte Turnpaugh et al 11/619,744 PER CURIAM 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER
3737 Ex Parte Ritter et al 09/842,417 HORNER 102(b) Bryan K. Wheelock Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER CASLER, BRIAN L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Hwang et al 11/580,713 BARRY 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHILLIPS, III, ALBERT M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte McCrory et al 11/033,024 GREENHUT 102(b) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP EXAMINER PALO, FRANCIS T
What is lacking from the Examiner’s determinations of inherency is evidence or reasoning to show that the allegedly inherent feature or property must necessarily result from Mimura’s process or structure, respectively. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Levy, Ex parte, 17 USPQ2d 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112
3662 Ex Parte Martin et al 10/529,192 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) WesternGeco L.L.C. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Zhuang et al 11/390,696 OWENS 102(b) 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Jerding et al 10/957,849 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Mottier et al 10/815,724 STEPHENS 103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LAM, KENNETH T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Emery et al 10/749,602 PRATS 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Stux et al 11/307,367 PAK 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE
It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the [S]pecification is not enabling . . . Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This enablement requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the written description requirement of that provision. See, e.g., Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (“Since its inception, this court has consistently held that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement.”)
Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) . . . 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)
Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08
1727 Ex Parte MATSUI et al 11/979,403 HASTINGS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A
1781 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11/370,137 KATZ 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Rigoutsos 10/305,582 DIXON 101/102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LY, CHEYNE D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Ruiz et al 10/408,037 SIU 103(a) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Felbach 10/838,234 RUGGIERO 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEFF, MICHAEL R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Theel 10/668,049 KIM 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
3711 Ex Parte Turnpaugh et al 11/619,744 PER CURIAM 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER
3737 Ex Parte Ritter et al 09/842,417 HORNER 102(b) Bryan K. Wheelock Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER CASLER, BRIAN L
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
ultramercial, researchcorp, farrenkopf, cybersource, dealertrack
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte GOLDENBERG et al 11/745,692 GRIMES 103(a) IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. EXAMINER KINSEY WHITE. NICOLE ERIN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Thoma 10/647,912 HOELTER 102(b) O'Shea Getz P.C. EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brissette 11/090,861 SAINDON 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M
3748 Ex Parte Goulette et al 11/453,352 SAINDON 102(b) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q
3761 Ex Parte Pfeifer et al 10/231,151 BONILLA 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Sparr et al 10/122,762 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) MOSER TABOADA EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/403,597 KIM 101/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER UBER, NATHAN C
However, the Federal Circuit has held that Section 101 is “merely a threshold check” and “no more than a ‘coarse eligibility filter’” that “are certainly not substitutes for the substantive patentability requirements set forth in § 102, § 103, and § 112.” See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11/485,413 KIM 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID
3783 Ex Parte Moskun 11/434,429 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COLEMAN, KEITH A
While Springer criticizes the use of a wireless radio connection for remote monitoring as complex and costly (id.), the cost of a particular modification in and of itself is not typically presumed sufficient to discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the modification. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11/260,678 NAGUMO 103(a) Rahman LLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Edelson 11/101,436 FETTING 112(2)/101/103(a) PATTON BOGGS LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
As to the “computer-implemented method,”
even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). Simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where
the claims here recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. The fact that certain algorithms are disclosed in the specification does not change the outcome. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed.
Dealertrack v Huber --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed Cir 2012). The phrase “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Godley 09/778,543 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/997,183 ASTORINO 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D
3761 Ex Parte Schneider 10/995,863 PRATS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte GOLDENBERG et al 11/745,692 GRIMES 103(a) IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. EXAMINER KINSEY WHITE. NICOLE ERIN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Thoma 10/647,912 HOELTER 102(b) O'Shea Getz P.C. EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brissette 11/090,861 SAINDON 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M
3748 Ex Parte Goulette et al 11/453,352 SAINDON 102(b) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q
3761 Ex Parte Pfeifer et al 10/231,151 BONILLA 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Sparr et al 10/122,762 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) MOSER TABOADA EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/403,597 KIM 101/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER UBER, NATHAN C
However, the Federal Circuit has held that Section 101 is “merely a threshold check” and “no more than a ‘coarse eligibility filter’” that “are certainly not substitutes for the substantive patentability requirements set forth in § 102, § 103, and § 112.” See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11/485,413 KIM 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID
3783 Ex Parte Moskun 11/434,429 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COLEMAN, KEITH A
While Springer criticizes the use of a wireless radio connection for remote monitoring as complex and costly (id.), the cost of a particular modification in and of itself is not typically presumed sufficient to discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the modification. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11/260,678 NAGUMO 103(a) Rahman LLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Edelson 11/101,436 FETTING 112(2)/101/103(a) PATTON BOGGS LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
As to the “computer-implemented method,”
even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). Simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where
the claims here recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. The fact that certain algorithms are disclosed in the specification does not change the outcome. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed.
Dealertrack v Huber --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed Cir 2012). The phrase “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Godley 09/778,543 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/997,183 ASTORINO 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D
3761 Ex Parte Schneider 10/995,863 PRATS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)