typhoon touch, microprocessor, ergo, telcordia, dailey,

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Buczkowski 11475792 - (D) SMITH 102 Silicon Valley Patent Group LLP EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J

1726 Ex Parte Jarvis et al 11931971 - (D) TIMM 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER RHEE, JANE J

1726 Ex Parte Wheat et al 10791428 - (D) TIMM 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

While it might be possible to install software that would allow Mufford’s controller to warm the fuel cell stack and the water supply when the vehicle is not running, the “capable of” test requires that the prior art structure be capable of performing the function without further programming. Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). When the functional language is associated with programming or some other structure required to perform the function, that programming or structure must be present in order to meet the claim limitation. Id. While in some circumstances generic structural disclosures may be sufficient to meet the requirements of a “controller”, see Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2010), that is not the case here.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Jonas 10331068 - (D) PERRY 102 GATES & COOPER LLP - IBM EXAMINER BROWN, SHEREE N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Foell et al 10531622 - (D) LEE 112(1)/112(2)/102 POLYONE CORPORATION EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boyle et al 09967906 - (D) ADAMS 103 FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3763 Ex Parte Glynn 11637275 - (D) MILLS 103 Kenneth P. Glynn EXAMINER LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

3778 Ex Parte Veglio et al 10790418 - (D) ASTORINO 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Chadbourne 12009356 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 102/103 HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER LEON, EDWIN A

We agree with Appellant that the Specification’s disclosure of the significance of the shape provides persuasive evidence of the significance of the claimed shapes. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).

Dailey, In re, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Hoek et al 12158204 - (D) TIMM 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D

1733 Ex Parte Rakowski 10654203 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/103 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1746 Ex Parte Mulcahy et al 11429745 - (D) SMITH 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J

1766 Ex Parte Strauch et al 12090979 - (D) SMITH 102/103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER KAHN, RACHEL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Cheston et al 10683242 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Jackson Walker, L.L.P. EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte MacGregor et al 11541714 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER GILMAN, ALEXANDER

2856 Ex Parte Kotovsky 11869874 - (D) GONSALVES 103 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER ROY, PUNAM P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte LaRose 11321608 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Patrick I. LaRose EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Ede 10732063 BARRY 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC STIGLIC, RYAN M

2175 Ex Parte Mackinlay et al 10687486 COURTENAY 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. LONG, ANDREA NATAE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Covell et al 11149719 CALDWELL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WAQAS, SAAD A

2495 Ex Parte Hyppönnen 10398753 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Becker et al 11028158 BARRY 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11936846 HOFF 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD TRAN, TRANG Q

2833 Ex Parte Too et al 11687529 KRIVAK 102/103 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY

2856 Ex Parte Klosterman et al 11503334 KRIVAK 103 ABBOTT LABORATORIES ROGERS, DAVID A

2894 Ex Parte Luk et al 10751714 SAADAT 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP MONDT, JOHANNES P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Nouis 10652680 McCARTHY 102/103 McLaughlin & McLaughlin CHARLES, MARCUS

3671 Ex Parte Kormann et al 11072890 McCARTHY 103 DEERE & COMPANY TORRES, ALICIA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Do et al 11171560 GRIMES 103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Morman et al 10301664 MILLS 102 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Woehr et al 11592595 FRANKLIN 103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP MEDWAY, SCOTT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Williams et al 10103080 ADAMS 102 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP FUBARA, BLESSING M

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Oskorep 10209760 HOFF 103 103 JOHN J. OSKOREP, ESQ. LLC LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

2612 Ex Parte Moran 11376613 KRIVAK 103 103 EVERGREEN POINT CAPITAL GROUP INC. LAU, HOI CHING

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Bhan 10943756 HANLON 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY SMITH, JENNIFER A

1762 Ex Parte Sigworth et al 12077765 PRAISS 102 CHEMTURA CORPORATION CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Zondervan et al 10989565 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP SMITH, GARRETT A

2191 Ex Parte Brown et al 10454424 PERRY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHEN, QING

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Adamczyk et al 11297721 HOFF 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC SWARTHOUT, BRENT

The Federal Circuit concluded that it would have been obvious to combine (1) a mechanical device for actuating a phonograph to play back sounds associated with a letter in a word on a puzzle piece with (2) an electronic, processor-driven device capable of playing the sound associated with a first letter of a word in a book. Leapfrog Ent., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[a]ccommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices”). In reaching that conclusion, the Federal Circuit recognized that “[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Id. at 1161 (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined device was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2612 Ex Parte Yoshimura 11186880 HOFF 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. SYED, NABIL H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte CHIANG 12254461 MANTIS MERCADER 103 Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC NGUYEN, PHUONGCHI T

2833 Ex Parte Johannes 11725938 KRIVAK 102 Harrington & Smith HAMMOND, BRIGGITTE R

2833 Ex Parte Patterson et al 11582100 KRIVAK 102/103 Armstrong World Industries, inc. PATEL, HARSHAD C

2858 Ex Parte Nam et al 11285281 KRIVAK 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate Technology LLC) VELEZ, ROBERTO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Bolduc et al 09928598 SAADAT 102 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 WAHL CLIPPER CORPORATION Requester and Respondent v. KIM LAUBE Patent Owner and Appellant 95000523 6473973 COCKS 112(1)/102/103 LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS W. BEECH FOSTER, JIMMY G original WATTS, DOUGLAS D

3761 Ex Parte Lais 11449100 BONILLA 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3763 Ex Parte Bierman 11355048 BONILLA 103/obviousness-type double patenting KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3765 Ex Parte Kronenberger 11189324 KAUFFMAN 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER MORAN, KATHERINE M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Chiang et al 11155288 ADAMS 112(1) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/MannKind Corporation HALVORSON, MARK

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Garcia-Alonso et al 11815353 GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11280120 BONILLA 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Markou et al 10527525 PRATS 103 THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE EXAMINER CARTER, KENDRA D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kim et al 11937462 HASTINGS 102 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER MOHADDES, LADAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte McGarry et al 10849668 SAINDON 102/103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, CUONG H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex parte QUICKIE, LLC Appellant, Patent Owner 90007085 90006460 6066160 09/198,087 SONG 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original EXAMINER JACKSON, GARY

3736 Ex Parte Foerster et al 10213638 SCHEINER 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Li et al 11305829 ADAMS 102/103 112(2) OCCHIUTI ROHLICEK & TSAO, LLP EXAMINER HILL, KEVIN KAI

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Diaz et al 11032203 WINSOR 102 112(2)/103
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP(Ikanos) EXAMINER CHRISS, ANDREW W
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Rodenhouse 10485613 COCKS 112(1)/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3656 Ex Parte Masumura et al 10508788 SAINDON 103 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. EXAMINER PILKINGTON, JAMES

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ogg et al 10598074 SAINDON 103 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER TECCO, ANDREW M

3721 Ex Parte Forster et al 11095723 SAINDON 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Weiss 10867951 ADAMS 103 ADRIANO & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte True 10468558 COURTENAY 103 Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER INGVOLDSTAD, BENNETT

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Henri et al 11406179 HOFF 103 Eric Fincham EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Hayashida 11411919 HOFF 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER CHENG, DIANA

2899 Ex parte BAYLOR COLLEGE of MEDICINCE and ABBOTT LABORATORIES Appellant 11937462 5582989 08/315,673 LEBOVITZ 103 VYSIS, INC EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER MARSCHEL, ARDIN H
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG and ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester and Appellant v. I-CUT, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent, 95001355 6619168 09/951,167 LEBOVITZ 102 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

crown packaging, hynix

REVERSED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requestor, Appellant v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95000166 6426916 09/796,206 EASTHOM 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN

cf. Crown Packaging Tech. Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1382-84 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (district court erred in finding lack of written description in generic claims where the application discloses separate solutions to related problems).

Cf. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1351-53 (2011) (holding that evidence supported jury verdict of written description for similar Rambus claims where “the supposed genus consists of only two species, a multiplexed bus and a non-multiplexed bus”).

2829 Ex Parte Yelehanka et al 11466350 CALDWELL 102
ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP EXAMINER TRAN, LONG K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte McGraw et al 11327515 WALSH 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER CARTER, TARA ROSE E

3739 Ex Parte Szweda et al 11404217 GREEN 102/103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER DVORAK, LINDA C

3761 Ex Parte Suarez 10517331 FRANKLIN 102/103 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

3763 Ex Parte Guo et al 11911190 ADAMS 102/103 ST. JUDE MEDICAL, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DIVISION EXAMINER EISENBERG, REBECCA E

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Warren et al 11818023 ADAMS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC. EXAMINER SYKES, ALTREV C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11335783 DANG 102/103 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BURKE, JEFF A

2185 Ex Parte Mane 11301975 THOMAS 103 RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Modelski et al 9741857 CALDWELL 112(2) 103 Anderson Gorecki & Manaras LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tretyak et al 11142715 BUSCH 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Barsun et al 10803399 BARRY 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PAPE, ZACHARY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Sowinski et al 11430334 WALSH 112(2) 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L

3753 Ex Parte Tsuchiya et al 10494568 BAHR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 RABIN & Berdo, PC EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

cordis, hoffer, minton, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Dent 11/143,157 GONSALVES 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Edgar 11/298,336 HOELTER 102/103 Elizabeth A. Edgar EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3657 Ex Parte Adoline et al 10/820,280 STAICOVICI 103 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3687 Ex Parte East 11/177,182 FETTING 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tarantino 10/810,782 LORIN 103 WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3721 Ex Parte Seyffert 11/051,274 CALVE 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3761 Ex Parte Meir 10/601,455 BONILLA 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kiehlbauch et al 11/812,902 DELMENDO 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Alberth et al 10/206,706 DILLON 103 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER BOCURE, TESFALDET

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Uhlir-Tsang et al 11/553,932 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

1734 Ex Parte Higgins 12/167,139 METZ 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER LE, EMILY M

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al 11/700,633 GAUDETTE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1767 Ex Parte TAKAGI et al 12/391,725 FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1771 Ex Parte Bhan et al 11/014,362 SCHAFER 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Sahita et al 11/170,925 DROESCH 101/102 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation RIAD, AMINE

Claim construction is an issue of law subject to review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2183 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/850,095 DILLON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

The determination of whether an intended use clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jain et al 10/291,169 KIM 101/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[i]t is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”). Simply adding computer limitations to such mental processes, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11/241,883 KIM 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER SMITH, JEFFREY A

3627 Ex Parte Stenz et al 10/873,000 FETTING non-obvious double patenting 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3634 Ex Parte Woller 10/426,550 HORNER 102 GARDNER GROFF GREENWALD & VILLANUEVA. PC CHIN EXAMINER SHUE, ALVIN C

3682 Ex Parte Boyle 11/215,907 KIM 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/174,654 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boukhny 11/060,827 FRANKLIN 103 ALCON EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3743 Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al 10/879,136 BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LU, JIPING

3767 Ex Parte Dalton 11/252,329 FITZPATRICK 103 Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/159,718 DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

jones, lemin, merck2, wyers, kao, thorner, aventis

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Nakatani et al 10/513,392 TIMM 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1785 Ex Parte Weerasinghe et al 10/962,994 BEST 112(1)/102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CHAU, LINDA N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Saake et al 10/468,181 COURTENAY 103 EMC Corporation KIM, PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 09/865,030 POTHIER 103 WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun  10/670,902 BARRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 HASBRO, INC. Appellant v. GANZ Patent Owner, Respondent 95/001,345 7568964 12/250,757 SIU 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP KISS, ERIC B original AHMED, MASUD

3731 Ex Parte Jagger et al 10/601,952 GRIMES 103
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10/551,108 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. LEE, DORIS L

Our reviewing court has rejected the proposition that, “regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.” In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In Lemin, cited by the majority, the court explained that :

The position of the Patent Office is, essentially, that Lemin has done no more than pluck a subgenus out of a generic disclosure by Jones, and has used that subgenus in precisely the manner taught by Jones.
Generally speaking, there is nothing unobvious in choosing ‘some’ among ‘many’ indiscriminately. Here, however, the choice is based on a discovery by Lemin that some compounds, falling within a prior art genus, have a special significance.

332 F.2d 839, 841 (citation omitted). Moreover, unlike the “multitude [1200] of effective combinations” disclosed by the reference patent in Merck, 874 F.2d at 807, the number of combinations in this case is truly astronomical.

Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Horikawa 11/122,249 HOMERE 102/103 102 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP RENNER, BRANDON M

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Mahalingam et al 10/436,310 FREDMAN 103 Avon Products, Inc. VU, JAKE MINH

To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing secondary considerations of unexpected results, Appellants must first establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the allegedly unexpected results. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Duffin 10/473,643 GAUDETTE 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1765 Ex Parte Null 11/920,474 DELMENDO 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY VALDEZ, DEVE E

1775 Ex Parte Latino et al 10/963,139 OWENS 103 MORRISS O'BRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C. YOO, REGINA M

1782 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 11/927,019 GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SMITH, PRESTON

1786 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/745,327 BEST 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/393,641 CHEN 102/103 KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391) COUGHLAN, PETER D

2166 Ex Parte Ortwein et al 10/837,980 DILLON 102 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2194 Ex Parte Krishnaswamy et al 10/808,223 MARTIN 112(1)/101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZHEN, LI B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tao 11/469,626 EASTHOM 103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Therefore, Appellant attempts to limit the ordinary claim term “message” to exclude packets or other known message formats. However, the Federal Circuit recently reiterated the stringent standard for narrowing a claim term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There, we explained that we will only interpret a claim term more narrowly than its ordinary meaning under two circumstances: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id. at 1365.

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bliznak 11/239,140 LORIN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3637 Ex Parte Atkins 11/501,967 LEE 103 JAMES RAY & ASSOCIATES WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 11/128,786 McCOLLUM 102 Medtronic CardioVascular COHEN, LEE S

lintner

REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Mukherjee et al 10/724,284 DANG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BATES, KEVIN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Skinner et al 11/120,295 SAINDON 102/103 Slater & Matsil, L.L.P. PARSLEY, DAVID J

3654 Ex Parte Ito 11/782,303 GREENHUT 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD KRUER, STEFAN

3665 Ex Parte Li 11/945,650 ZECHER 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Claims that are so broad that they read on nonstatutory as well as statutory subject matter are unpatentable. Cf. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (CCPA 1972) (citation omitted) (“Claims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter.”). “A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation „non-transitory‟ to the claim.” David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OFF. GAZ. PAT. OFFICE 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

Lintner, In re, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . .2142, 2143.01, 2144, 2144.08, 2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/486,549 SAINDON 112(2)/102/103 HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP KIM, PAUL D

3742 Ex Parte Patel 10/490,542 BAHR 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3761 Ex Parte Nagao et al 10/509,673 GRIMES 102/103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP WIEST, PHILIP R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Sipka et al 10/651,136 McCOLLUM 103 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Schurr et al 09/957,451 GREENHUT 103 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Weyandt et al 11/202,563 NAGUMO 103 YOUNG BASILE COLEMAN, RYAN L

1776 Ex Parte Saito et al 10/574,762 DELMENDO 103 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER SMITH, DUANE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Nallur et al 10/623,683 KRIVAK 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Saarinen et al 10/952,195 SCANLON 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. DIACOU, ARI M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Trovato et al 11/574,200 WALSH 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP MATNEY, BROOKE MARIE
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
 
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Pickett 11/132,239 GREENHUT BREINER & BREINER, L.L.C. SKURDAL, COREY NELSON

skvorecz, abrams

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Kiefer et al 11/959,251 FREDMAN 103 Genomic Health, Inc. (Bozicevic, Field & Francis) MUMMERT, STEPHANIE KANE

“The protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation. This protocol is solely an examination expedient, not a rule of claim construction.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sen et al 11/691,386 MARTIN 103 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Ortiz et al 10/174,602 THOMAS 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Otterbach et al 10/095,636 KOHUT 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Adams et al 10/865,826 FETTING 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP HOAR, COLLEEN A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Dierkes et al 11/043,379 OBERMANN 103 103 NIKOLAI & MERSEREAU, P.A. ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11/538,393 ARBES 101/103 102/103 Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP c/o CPA Global  RAHMAN, SABANA

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Jensen et al 10/723,423 Per curiam 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1646 Ex Parte Manning et al 10/683,214 PRATS 103 King & Spalding LLP Seharaseyon, Jegatheesan

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Disteldorf et al 11/878,318 GAUDETTE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN

1741 Ex Parte Disteldorf et al 11/492,204 GAUDETTE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Puustinen 11/174,092 JEFFERY 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

2181 RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. NVIDIA CORPORATION Requestor, Respondent 95/001,134 6,260,097 09/514,872 EASTHOM 102/103 Paul M. Anderson, PLLC ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Linares 10/190,739 BISK 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C DULANEY, KATHLEEN YUAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 PANDUIT CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,415 6,925,242 10/871,641 LEBOVITZ 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC ENGLISH, PETER C original PALMER, PHAN T H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Sundaram et al 10/929,358 KIM 112(2)/101/103 KANG LIM SHAH, AMEE A

See In re Abrams, 188 F.2d 165, 168 (CCPA 1951) (“[c]itation of authority in support of the principle that claims to mental concepts which constitute the very substance of an alleged invention are not patentable is unnecessary. It is self-evident that thought is not patentable”).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Zaguroli 11/399,618 PRATS 103 JOHN R. BENEFIEL SCHUBERT, CHRISTOPHER

3777 Ex Parte Graw 10/383,280 HOELTER 102/103 Siemens Corporation CHENG, JACQUELINE

diamond1, parker, gottschalk, ultramercial

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Ho 10/599,779 FREDMAN Concurring PRATS 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP YU, GINA C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/126,699 WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

“Although abstract principles are not eligible for patent protection, an application of an abstract idea may well be deserving of patent protection. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (1981) (“an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978) (“While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.”). The application of an abstract idea to a “new and useful end” is the type of invention that the Supreme Court has described as deserving of patent protection. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). After all, unlike the Copyright Act which divides idea from expression, the Patent Act covers and protects any new and useful technical advance, including applied ideas.” Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011).


Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/518,540 KAUFFMAN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3761 Ex Parte Nakahata et al 10/736,282 BONILLA 112(1)/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO

3761 Ex Parte Thorson et al 11/373,029 PRATS 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3774 Ex Parte Foley 11/451,836 McCARTHY 103 Medtronic, Inc (Spinal/Krieg DeVault) SWEET, THOMAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Zou et al 10/379,733 FETTING 103 obviousness-type double patenting ACS (Affiliated Computer Services)/Finnegan OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Herman 10/995,616 HASTINGS 102/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP WALKER, KEITH D

1735 Ex Parte Barnes et al 11/426,937 HASTINGS 102/103 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP SAAD, ERIN BARRY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Flanagan et al 10/940,199 COURTENAY 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global JOHNSTON, PHILLIP A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/216,275 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP HEWITT II, CALVIN L
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED 
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Campbell et al  11/507,979 COURTENAY 103 PATE BAIRD, PLLC MARTELLO, EDWARD

eaton2, mintz

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Gulin et al 11/243,284 JEFFERY 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EXAMINER BUI, THUY T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte DeFigueiredo et al 11/583,415 BAHR 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER CICCHINO, PATRICK D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Clarke et al 10/533,842 SCHEINER 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER Wiest, Philip

3763 Ex Parte Noda et al 11/765,536 GRIMES 102/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CHANDER, DIVA KAKAR

See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex parte MICROLINC, LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,376 6,009,488 08/965,760 TURNER 112(2)/103 305 LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE M. CUMMINGS, P.C. EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER SHIN, CHRISTOPHER B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. FUJIFILM, CORP. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,450 7,535,658 11/932,081 TURNER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER COLLINS, DARRYL J

The mere recitation of the words “common sense” without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation. Within the statutory test to determine if a claimed invention has advanced its technical art field enough to warrant an exclusive right, “common sense” is a shorthand label for knowledge so basic that it certainly lies within the skill set of an ordinary artisan. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 1940157, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Steger 10/224,309 MacDONALD 103 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Nuovo et al 10/451,693 GONSALVES 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Winter 11/602,635 GRIMES 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER SMITH, KAITLYN ELIZABETH
 
REHEARING

DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Rickard et al 11/145,403 HOMERE 112(1) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. EXAMINER VO, THANH DUC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Duerksen et al 10/857,935 HOMERE 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER TRAN, THANH Y

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Gully 11/510,219 BAHR 102/103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F