Oct 30, 2012

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Bologna et al 10423920 - (D) MILLS 112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting WINSTON & STRAWN LLP VU, JAKE MINH

1622 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11915067 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. OH, TAYLOR V

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Ji et al 11378224 - (D) OBERMANN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. ESSEX, STEPHAN J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Liu et al 11098887 - (D) JEFFERSON 102 ORACLE HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG NG, AMY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Adjali et al 11284297 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte Yamaguchi 11337565 - (D) JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC BOLOTIN, DMITRIY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Terleski et al 11529792 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102/103 DOCKET CLERK ISLAM, SYED A

3633 Ex Parte Anderson 10830821 - (D) HORNER 102/103 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC FIGUEROA, ADRIANA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Arbefeuille 11218917 - (D) GRIMES 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3762 Ex Parte Gerber 11591447 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

3783 Ex Parte Klink et al 10191203 - (D) REIMERS 103 GUDRUN E. HUCKETT DRAUDT COLEMAN, KEITH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Farr et al 11263725 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/102 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LOVE, TREVOR M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Rumsey et al 11005720 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 GENTEX CORPORATION CONSILVIO, MARK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Klabunde et al 11274799 - (D) O’HEARN 103 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S

3763 Ex Parte Doty 11215590 - (D) PRATS 112(2)/103 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. LANDRY II, GERALD ERNEST

3781 Ex Parte Bobed 10527536 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Smith et al 10879716 - (D) SMITH 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

1763 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11698518 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FINK, BRIEANN R

1771 Ex Parte Cartwright 11590546 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company GOLOBOY, JAMES C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11057497 - (D) COURTENAY 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION WESTMAN CHAMPLIN REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2686 Ex Parte Evans et al 11260994 - (D) WINSOR 101/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MERCEDES, DISMERY E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Wang et al 11521805 - (D) HOFF 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. BERNSTEIN, ALLISON

2828 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11649801 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Vedder Price, PC STAFFORD, PATRICK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Merin et al 11245271 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH KEENAN, JAMES W

3689 Ex Parte Thelen et al 11421409 - (D) PETRAVICK 101/112(2)/103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Gall et al 10598080 - (D) JENKS 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG (DEN) MERENE, JAN CHRISTOP L

3745 Ex Parte Chambers et al 11056185 - (D) SAINDON 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD

3753 Ex Parte Jones 11290662 - (D) BAHR 103 TUNG & ASSOCIATES CHAUDRY, ATIF H

howard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Biskeborn 10754392 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 WALTER W. DUFT NEGRON, DANIELL L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 10922130 - (D) HORNER 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. PILKINGTON, JAMES

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Hochmuth et al 11020982 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAKELE, MESEKER

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Doherty et al 11140633 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2)/103 THOMPSON HINE LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Soto et al 10886021 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Alexander Soto BELLO, AGUSTIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lin et al 11406030 - (D) SAADAT 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER PINKNEY, DAWAYNE

The Examiner’s reliance on Howard vs. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893) is inappropriate because Katagiri’s structure requires multiple components of different materials which cannot be integrally formed as one piece (App. Br. 17-18, Reply Br. 9).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Husing 11114595 - (D) BROWN 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. CHIN, PAUL T

rinehart, kollman, atlas powder

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Karanam et al 11966051 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP) SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

In re Rinehart, 531 F. 2d 1048, 1052 (CCPA 1976) ("When prima facie obviousness is established and evidence is submitted in rebuttal, the decision-maker must start over.")

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) 2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526393 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526417 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526369 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526834 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1782 Ex Parte Mengel et al 11523953 - (D) PAK 103 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. PATTERSON, MARC A

1786 Ex Parte Boehm et al 10490893 - (D) BEST 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. THOMPSON, CAMIE S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Claydon 10450615 - (D) SMITH 102/103 WEIDE & MILLER - MINDSPEED COLEMAN, ERIC

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Komaki et al 10308142 - (D) Per Curiam 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Farrell et al 10696583 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP GILBERT, WILLIAM V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Rysavy 11745555 - (D) GREENHUT 103 WRB-IP LLP SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3726 Ex Parte Schnyder 11022881 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. AFZALI, SARANG

3767 Ex Parte Marshall et al 10506472 - (D) ASTORINO 102 YOUNG & THOMPSON GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Valenta et al 11933498 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) 102 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Poletto et al 10701356 - (D) MOORE 102 112(2)/102 Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Myers et al 11465999 - (D) GREENHUT 103 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN RALIS, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ramnarayan et al 10923620 - (D) ADAMS 103 Sapient Discovery Dr. Kal Ramnarayan BRUSCA, JOHN S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Yan et al 11762103 - (D) HOUSEL 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

1764 Ex Parte He et al 11290064 - (D) HANLON 103/obviousness-type double patenting MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. c/o Dilworth & Barrese, LLP PAK, HANNAH J

1767 Ex Parte SOUNIK et al 12132722 - (D) GARRIS 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11729276 - (D) PRAISS 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC EDWARDS, LYDIA E

1781 Ex Parte DeBiccari et al 11588814 - (D) HASTINGS 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global MEHTA, MEGHA S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11004499 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. VY, HUNG T

2164 Ex Parte Vasey 10933466 - (D) SMITH 103 Anderson Gorecki & Rouille LLP CHOI, YUK TING

2184 Ex Parte Lathrop et al 11343794 - (D) GIANNETTI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BORROMEO, JUANITO C

2185 Ex Parte Hampel et al 11381349 - (D) DILLON 103 Rambus MARC P. SCHUYLER LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Dougherty et al 10957229 - (D) CURCURI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2483 Ex Parte He et al 10888268 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC HOLDER, ANNER N

We recognize that a trend in results may be shown where the full scope of a claim has not been tested. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979).

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

2486 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 11269424 - (D) GONSALVES 102 (Broadcom) THOMAS
HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Costello et al 11271293 - (D) GONSALVES 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE LLP THOMAS, BRADLEY H

AtlasPowder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”).

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112, 2131.01, 2131.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12157550 - (D) FREDMAN dissenting WALSH 102 JOHNSON & JOHNSON PHILIP S. JOHNSON SHI, KATHERINE MENGLIN

3754 Ex Parte Lasserre et al 11178283 - (D) WOOD 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGO, LIEN M

KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Abd Elhamid et al 11562597 - (D) TORCZON 102/103 Brooks Kushman P.C. RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Cohen et al 10287794 - (D) WARD 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Wasilewski et al 10376863 - (D) McNAMARA 103 SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY MERCHANT & GOULD SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Utterberg et al 11124701 - (D) BAHR 103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Laroia et al 10895720 - (D) ZECHER 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ELPENORD, CANDAL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Eidson 10454291 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Cirone 11497329 - (D) FETTING 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) MAI, TRI M  

In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.   KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007).

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

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3661 SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester v. GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001378 6704651 09/989,558 COCKS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ENGLISH, PETER C original BEAULIEU, YONEL

media techs, nuijten, tiffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10469391 - (D) GREEN 103 Merck BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choperena et al 10793455 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 K&L GATES LLP YOO, REGINA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Purwin 11037177 - (D) STRAUSS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CLEARY, THOMAS J

2175 Ex Parte Martyn 10343333 - (D) McNAMARA 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON LLP VU, THANH T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Jagger et al 11496249 - (D) BONILLA 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Yang et al 11745283 - (D) WALSH 102/103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP YANG, NELSON C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Axen et al 11995979 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 102/103 GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Sayal et al 10918587 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, KHANH B

We disagree with the Appellants. The specification does not clearly define “tangible” or a “computer readable medium.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “tangible computer readable medium” encompasses a transitory, propagating signal. Given that a medium can be both tangible and transitory, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that a “tangible computer readable medium” as broadly claimed encompasses a transitory, propagating signal. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter. Examples include physical but transitory forms of signal transmission such as radio broadcasts, electrical signals through a wire, and light pulses through a fiber-optic cable, that convey encoded information. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Rajagopalan et al 10828023 - (D) GARRIS 103 Applied Materials BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1733 Ex Parte Mukai et al 10566433 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1742 Ex Parte Zhamu et al 11899008 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Bor Z. Jang SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

1754 Ex Parte McTeer 11370269 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) BAND, MICHAEL A

Claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).

1761 Ex Parte Lifchits 11789664 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 Christie Parker & Hale LLP NGUYEN, HAIDUNG D

1792 Ex Parte Lonergan 11564428 - (D) OWENS 103 General Mills CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Okawa et al 10891796 - (D) DIXON 103 IBM CORPORATION RUIZ, ARACELIS

2195 Ex Parte Broussard et al 10762000 - (D) BUI 103 IBM Austin HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TO, JENNIFER N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et al 11045515 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2448 Ex Parte Aloni et al 11269005 - (D) GONSALVES 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Nastacio 11382364 - (D) DILLON 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Curey et al 09821537 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. LEE, PHILIP C

2644 Ex Parte Rosen et al 11096869 - (D) GONSALVES 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2659 Ex Parte Weiser 10177685 - (D) GONSALVES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A

2685 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10684583 - (D) HUME 103 Lewis and Roca LLP POPE, DARYL C
 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Theuss 11865122 - (D) GONSALVES 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA BAISA, JOSELITO SASIS
 
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent and Cross-Appellant and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester 95000250 6452863 09/492,982 EASTHOM 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN

See Application of Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) (commercial success evidence of thermoplastic foam cups is not commensurate in scope with broad claims directed to thermoplastic foam containers). 

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness. See Media Techs. Licensing, LLC v. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 2010 WL 2897876 (Oct. 04, 2010) (“Even if [the patentee] could establish the required nexus, a highly successful product alone would not overcome the strong showing of obviousness.”).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Lu 11272448 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

CAE

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 12153585 - (D) PRATS 103 NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC WAX, ROBERT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Kalthoff et al 10622360 - (D) McKEOWN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP DAILEY, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Kalkanoglu et al 11689574 - (D) BAHR 102/103 Paul & Paul GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3671 Ex Parte Schafer et al 11128561 - (D) BAHR 103 Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Zhong et al 10841209 - (D) DANIELS 112(2)/102/103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. CHANG, RICK KILTAE

3737 Ex Parte Vilsmeier et al 10634133 - (D) PRATS 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SHAHRESTANI, NASIR

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Tucker et al 11676496 - (D) CALVE 103 103 CLYDE I. COUGHENOUR JUNGE, KRISTINA N S

3637 Ex Parte Garcia 11517809 - (D) LEE 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ING, MATTHEW W

3671 Ex Parte Schafer et al 10881082 - (D) BAHR 103 102/103 Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Steinhauser et al 11475534 - (D) BAHR 102 103 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione/Ann Arbor PAIK, SANG YEOP

3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587226 - (D) HILL Dissenting McCARTHY 102/103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD

3762 Ex Parte Moffitt et al 12204136 - (D) GRIMES 103 102 NEUROMODULATION VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC GETZOW, SCOTT M

3763 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11211489 - (D) BONILLA 103 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3782 Ex Parte Kushner 10852634 - (D) McCARTHY 103/112(2) 103 STUART WHITTINGTON, ESQ. NEWHOUSE, NATHAN JEFFREY

The consistent use of different terms implies an intent to give the terms different meanings. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Crouse 11807795 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP TRAN, BINH X

1765 Ex Parte Khabashesku 12256258 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LENIHAN, JEFFREY S

1767 Ex Parte Althoff et al 11586267 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

1782 Ex Parte Dellevigne et al 11835048 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Do et al 11153846 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM CHOI, YUK TING

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Ward 11066530 - (D) WEINBERG 103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC HO, CHUONG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Acharya et al 11399872 - (D) HOMERE 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP WANG-HURST, KATHY W

2685 Ex Parte Danz et al 10564371 - (D) WARD 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP FAN, HONGMIN

2687 Ex Parte Wong et al 09741684 - (D) RUGGIERO 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MILLER, BRIAN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3784 Ex Parte Mayer 12543580 - (D) BARRETT 251/112(2)/103 SHERRILL LAW OFFICES COMINGS, DANIEL C  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Ward 12120322 - (D) FREDMAN Juneau Biosciences, LLC SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

hyatt3

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Naukkarinen et al 10534012 - (D) NEW 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP NGUYEN, TU X

We find that claim 1 is therefore a “single means claim,” i.e., a claim drafted in “means-plus-function” format, yet reciting only a single element instead of a combination. See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 713 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

35 U.S.C § 112(a) states:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

As the Federal Circuit noted in Hyatt, “[t]he long-recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor.” 708 F.2d at 714.

Hyatt, In re, 708 F.2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2164.08(a), 2181

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Sun et al 11728492 - (D) McNAMARA 102/103 Wells St. John P.S. GOODWIN, DAVID J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Trivedi et al 11176565 - (D) GRIMES 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C FINN, MEGHAN R

1653 Ex Parte Sharif et al 11090689 - (D) BONILLA 103 WINSTEAD PC MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cole et al 11054220 - (D) ARPIN 103 MHKKG / GLOBALFOUNDRIES TREAT, WILLIAM M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Deladurantaye et al 11316568 - (D) HOMERE 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC HAGAN, SEAN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 10550819 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Main) ALEMAN, SARAH WEBB

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

gaubert, langer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 FACEBOOK, INC. Requester and Appellant v. LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001261 7,139,761 10/732,744 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 King and Spalding LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original MIZRAHI, DIANE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Beringer et al 10285280 - (D) KIM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP PATS, JUSTIN

3632 Ex Parte Shevick 10966279 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 HEISLER & ASSOCIATES MARSH, STEVEN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Blum et al 09994860 - (D) BAHR 101 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP BOECKMANN, JASON J  

The basis of the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is that the disclosed invention is wholly inoperative and therefore lacks credible utility.

As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true.

In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974).

Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) 2107.02, 2107.03, 2124

Further, “the PTO must do more than merely question operability it must set forth factual reasons which would lead one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of operability.” In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1224-25 (CCPA 1975).

Gaubert, In re, 524 F.2d 1222, 187 USPQ 664 (CCPA 1975) 2107.03