alton, automotive technologies, genentech2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Nasvik et al 11655014 - (D) TIMM 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. RIVERA, JOSHEL

This evidence deserves at least some weight and should have been weighed with the other evidence of record. Cf. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1173-74 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding as error the failure to consider declaration evidence concerning questions of fact, and the summary dismissal, without adequate explanation, of the declaration as rebuttal evidence.). The Declaration need not prove that all contractors skilled in the art would have not found the method obvious.

Alton, In re, 76 F.3d 1168, 37 USPQ2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2145, 2163, 2163.06, 2164.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Swails et al 10931907 - (D) McCARTHY 103 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION BRINSON, PATRICK F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Treier et al 12039441 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP CLEMENTE, ROBERT ARTHUR

1785 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 12061518 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LINDA N

1785 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 11258532 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LINDA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 11069468 - (D) KRIVAK 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

2683 Ex Parte Flick 10188440 - (D) McKONE 112(1) ADDMG - 27975 SYED, NABIL H

Rather, "[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement." GENENTECH, INC v. NOVO NORDISK, A/S, 108 F.2d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) accord Automotive Technologies International v. BMW of North America, 501 F. 3d 1274, 1283 ("Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is indeed relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent.")

Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 42 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2161.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Cosmescu 11379406 - (D) JENKS 102/103 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP CARPENTER, WILLIAM R  

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2613 TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. FUJITSU LIMITED Requestor, Respondent 95000485 7369772 10/737,765 EASTHOM 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO HUGHES, DEANDRA M original SEDIGHIAN, REZA

REHEARING
 
DENIED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD. and MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. Requesters 95001152 6,324,120 09/779,296 EASTHOM FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN

fiers

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ronsse et al 11356725 - (D) NAGUMO 103 APPLIED MATERIALS INC PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Appm/NJ CHEN, KEATH T

1777 Ex Parte Tyvoll et al 11261741 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte OTOOLE et al 10474692 - (D) O’HEARN 103 Steptoe & Johnson TORRES, ALICIA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Hempel 11745508 - (D) GRIMES 103 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Raley et al 10388161 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 112(2) Reed Smith LLP ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Melsky et al 10865558 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 103 Leason Ellis LLP ROANE, AARON F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2653 Ex Parte Schmitz 11044132 - (D) COURTENAY 112(2)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2686 Ex Parte Hong 10747122 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SNIEZEK, ANDREW L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte OHARA et al 12509044 - (D) KIM 101/112(1)/112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) DONLON, RYAN D  

Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that “only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement”).  

Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 25 USPQ2d 1601 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2137.01, 2138.04, 2161.01, 2163

REHEARING
 
DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Lakshman et al 11147937 - (D) KOHUT ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP CHENG, CHI TANG P

beattie, perreira, genentech2, koito

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Senn et al 11221648 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COTRONEO, STEVEN J

3775 Ex Parte Richelsoph et al 10730210 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting RATNERPRESTIA NELSON, CHRISTINE L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte SenGupta et al 11345064 - (D) WALSH 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1627 Ex Parte Harbige et al 10756761 - (D) JENKS 103 BROWN RUDNICK LLP KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

“An expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.” Perreira v. Secretary of the Dept. of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (opinion evidence in declarations has little value without factual support).

Beattie, In re, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 716.01(c), 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Peidous 11781664 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Aylor 11706676 - (D) RICE 112(1)/102/103 ROBERT B. AYLOR ABDOSH, SAMIR

“Section 112 requires that the patent specification enable ‘those skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation”’ in order to extract meaningful disclosure of the invention and, by this disclosure, advance the technical arts. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1155 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citation omitted)).

Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 42 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2161.01

hiniker, self

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Li et al 12410160 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION SEIDLECK, JAMES J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Gomoll et al 10558183 - (D) HILL 103 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ROHRHOFF, DANIEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Wedemeyer 10714694 - (D) OSINSKI 102 112(2)/103 LOWELL R. WEDEMEYER JACKSON, BRANDON LEE

Unclaimed features cannot impart patentability to claims. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).

Hiniker Co., In re, 150 F.3d 1362, 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) , 2103 ,2242, 2258, 2258.01, 2642

Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982) 2131.05

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Evans et al 11424693 - (D) GONSALVES 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. LE, HUNG D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Jomppanen 10988205 - (D) GONSALVES 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Van Der Sluys & Adolphson LLP PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Harris et al 11522733 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP WHITMORE, STACY    

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2176 FRAME MEDIA, INC. Requester v. CEIVA LOGIC, INC. Patent Owner 95000402 6,442,573 09/458,849 COCKS 112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 THE HECKER LAW GROUP HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original ROSSI, JEFFREY A

Jan 3, 2013

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Bedingham et al 11323700 - (D) HOUSEL 112(1) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY GORDON, BRIAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Frank 10283971 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Avago Technologies Limited Kathy Manke PARKER, KENNETH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Topfl et al 10105696 - (D) McKONE 102/103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ NGUYEN, MINH CHAU

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Moisio 10171380 - (D) McKONE 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC PEREZ, ANGELICA

2648 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 11287034 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Broadcom THOMAS
HORSTEMEYER, LLP HUANG, WEN WU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Goh 11439686 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Fox Rothschild LLP NGUYEN, NIKI HOANG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Udall et al 11785826 - (D) PLENZLER 103 MANELLI SELTER PLLC GREEN, RICHARD R

genetics institute, mayhew

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte MCMILLAN et al 11669740 - (D) HUME 102 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. PATEL, MANGLESH M

2186 Ex Parte Okumoto et al 11016806 - (D) CHEN 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP ALSIP, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Fratti 11103815 - (D) DILLON 102/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP TRAN, TRANG U

2486 Ex Parte Schlaff 10185395 - (D) HUGHES 103 Leason Ellis LLP VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Eiselt et al 10427210 - (D) HOFF 103 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP VANDERPUYE, KENNETH N

2694 Ex Parte Verhaegh 10519055 - (D) THOMAS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CARTER III, ROBERT E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Lee et al 11877186 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP NADAV, ORI

2854 Ex Parte Bang et al 10869692 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP NGUYEN, ANTHONY H

2884 Ex Parte Lievois et al 11764658 - (D) EVANS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. VU, MINDY D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Davis 11467090 - (D) BONILLA 103 LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC JACKSON, BRANDON LEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1627 Ex Parte Coutre 10560669 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION JEAN-LOUIS, SAMIRA JM

However, post-filing evidence may be used to demonstrate unexpected results.

Genetics Institute v. Novartis Vaccines, 655 F. 3d 1291 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2011 cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1932, 182 L.Ed.2d 775 (U.S. 2012)

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Mumme 11013164 - (D) OBERMANN 103 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP HEITBRINK, JILL LYNNE

1758 Ex Parte Park et al 11789483 - (D) PAK 103 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG MEKHLIN, ELI S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Ouzts et al 09982337 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. STEVENS, ROBERT

2187 Ex Parte Augsburg et al 11343765 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BERTRAM, RYAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Hird 11187602 - (D) JEFFERSON 103 103 Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP/CA. Inc. AMBAYE, SAMUEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Grosz et al 10139058 - (D) HOFF 112(2) 112(2)/103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP VANDERPUYE, KENNETH N

2664 Ex Parte Swarr et al 10926799 - (D) DANG 103 103 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP YODER III, CHRISS S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Fargo et al 11554907 - (D) DIXON 102/103 102 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C DESAI, NAISHADH N

2856 Ex Parte Koch 11062830 - (D) HUGHES 103 112(2)/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Galer 10722737 - (D) ELLURU 102/103 ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS ARNOLD, ERNST V

1615 Ex Parte Endepols et al 10477480 - (D) MILLS 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC LEVY, NEIL S

1616 Ex Parte Senn et al 10801405 - (D) PRATS 103 Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Chung et al 11700334 - (D) METZ 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC FINK, BRIEANN R

1764 Ex Parte Ma et al 11294042 - (D) DELMENDO 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LEE, DORIS L

1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11729275 - (D) PRAISS concurring McKELVEY 112(1)/112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC EDWARDS, LYDIA E

Rather, when a critical element is missing, then the claim is unpatentable based on a lack of enablement. In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229 (CCPA 1976).

Mayhew, In re, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976) 2163, 2163.05, 2164.08(c) , 2172.01, 2174

1786 Ex Parte Taniguchi 10274160 - (D) TIMM 103 TAIYO CORPORATION CHOI, PETER Y

1786 Ex Parte Isele et al 10877540 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kamath et al 11180197 - (D) HUGHES 103 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2158 Ex Parte Pyka 11025686 - (D) COURTENAY 101/112(1)/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP BETIT, JACOB F

2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11035566 - (D) DIXON 103 IBM CORPORATION HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

2172 Ex Parte Morris 11061918 - (D) DILLON 102/103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC PILLAI, NAMITHA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Zhou et al 09953327 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10675081 - (D) DANG 102 GARLICK & MARKISON RYAN, PATRICK A

2442 Ex Parte Feng 11678271 - (D) ARPIN 103 Miller IP Group, PLC MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2451 Ex Parte Hodges et al 10720941 - (D) WARD 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ TIV, BACKHEAN

2478 Ex Parte Arulambalam et al 10880344 - (D) DESHPANDE 112(2)/102/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP RENNER, BRANDON M

2483 Ex Parte Nakajima 10805328 - (D) BUI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP HOLDER, ANNER N

2487 Ex Parte Knighton et al 10947465 - (D) DANG 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN CZEKAJ, DAVID J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Henning et al 11379127 - (D) McKEOWN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP LEBASSI, AMANUEL

2655 Ex Parte Moeller et al 09791802 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LAO, LUNSEE

2661 Ex Parte Hayes et al 11750383 - (D) HUGHES 103 SONY ERICSSON COATS & BENNETT CUTLER, ALBERT H

2662 Ex Parte Kogane et al 11186071 - (D) DANG 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP FOSSELMAN, JOEL W

2675 Ex Parte Wegeng et al 11312802 - (D) STRAUSS 103 XEROX - ROCHESTER FAY SHARPE CAMMACK, DAVID S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Henschel et al 11821515 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC PRASAD, CHANDRIKA

2852 Ex Parte Wong et al 11357631 - (D) DIXON 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP PERKEY, WILLIAM B

2894 Ex Parte Shah 11685908 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. PHAM, THANH V

allen eng'g, boehringer, IMS, Jung, Kinetic, storage tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Eisenhut et al 11294332 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC OCHYLSKI, RYAN M

1766 Ex Parte Heeney et al 12094895 - (D) SMITH 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. KAHN, RACHEL

1777 Ex Parte Beatty 11197960 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

1779 Ex Parte Gaid 12088501 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ANDERSON, DENISE R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Abuzaina et al 12147046 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3636 Ex parte Lear Corporation, Patent Owner and Appellant 90011745 6955397 10/950,711 ROBERTSON 103 LEAR CORPORATION BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original BROWN, PETER R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Geng 10728393 - (D) DANG 102 102/103 Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K

That is, such “being configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the light projector. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
...

Although claim 73 claims a “3D imaging camera” in the preamble, “[w]hether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held generally that “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

We do not find that the body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness; since the preamble does not provide more than just “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we find that the preamble has no separate limiting effect.

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181, 2183, 2184

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 Ex Parte Matsuzawa et al 10152930 - (D) HOFF 103 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION STULTZ, JESSICA T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Caldwell et al 11115968 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Tran Quoc et al 11573162 - (D) SCHAFER 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP LOUIE, MANDY C

1744 Ex Parte Curdy et al 10574003 - (D) SMITH 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LE, NINH V

1745 Ex Parte Giacometti 10552360 - (D) SMITH 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1746 Ex Parte Bauer 11805444 - (D) SMITH 103 Avery Dennison Corporation DODDS, SCOTT

1762 Ex Parte Ung et al 11094102 - (D) KATZ 103 Mintz Levin/Palo Alto HARLAN, ROBERT D

1765 Ex Parte Wei et al 12708368 - (D) PRAISS 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCGINTY, DOUGLAS J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Kottapalli 11638315 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HUISMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Lim et al 10419984 - (D) DANG 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2686 Ex Parte Karr et al 11265629 - (D) FRAHM 103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, so as to meet the notice required of 35 USC § 132, requires (1) “set[ting] forth the statutory basis of the rejection”; (2) “the reference or references relied upon”; and (3) explaining the references “in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, there must be (4) “a reason to combine prior art references[, which] is a question of fact.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Carrison 10793694 - (D) JENKS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

anchor wall, deering, laryngeal, michalek, reid, york prod.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Shanley et al 11582818 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Dergosits & Noah LLP STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Aichelen et al 11383000 - (D) BUSCH 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE PATEL, JIGAR P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Said et al 10686127 - (D) WARD 103 103 BANIAK PINE & GANNON BORSETTI, GREG

see also Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, 618 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (concluding the patentee did not act as his own lexicographer because “[t]o be his own lexicographer, a patentee must use a ‘special definition of the term [that] is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history’”).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Krueger et al 12023165 - (D) BROWN 103 103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP SMALLEY, JAMES N

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2736 Ex Parte SE-KURE CONTROLS, INC. Appellant 90011404 5,861,807 08/967,729 FITZPATRICK 102 102/103 WOOD PHILLIPS VAN SANTEN CLARK & MORTIMER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

See, e.g., York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The term ‘substantially’ has been construed in patent claims as ‘largely but not wholly that which is specified.’”) (quoting Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983)); Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Systems, Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The term ‘substantially’ can also mean ‘largely’ or ‘essentially.’”) (quoting Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary 1817 (1983)); cf. Anchor Wall Systems, Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the phrase ‘generally parallel’ envisions some amount of deviation from exactly parallel”).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181 

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Francois et al 10585754 - (D) SCHEINER 103 ELI LILLY & COMPANY MILLIGAN, ADAM C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Smith et al 10787624 - (D) FRAHM 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. MANOSKEY, JOSEPH D

2117 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10404783 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 CPA Global Caven & Aghevli LLC NGUYEN, STEVE N

2156 Ex Parte Rastegar et al 11520320 - (D) SMITH 103 Thomas Spinelli, Esq. LIAO, JASON G

2169 Ex Parte Osofsky et al 11191332 - (D) SMITH 103 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ CHAU, DUNG K

2171 Ex Parte Resner et al 11149929 - (D) DILLON 103 Charles G. Call PAN, YONGJIA

2421 Ex Parte Pugel et al 10549253 - (D) WARD 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC HANCE, ROBERT J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Barraclough et al 09740263 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1)/103 CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2435 Ex Parte MacKenzie 10600687 - (D) BENOIT 103 Ryan, Mason, & Lewis, LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Kerr et al 10161514 - (D) HOFF 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D

2684 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 10952236 - (D) McKEOWN 103 Siemens Corporation BLOUNT, ERIC

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Fukui 10925986 - (D) DILLON 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH NADAV, ORI

The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight.

In re Michalek, 162 F. 2d 229 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1947

Michalek, In re, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947) 716.07

Application of Reid, 179 F. 2d 998 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1950

Reid, In re, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950) 716.07

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1501 Ex parte SOLTA MEDICAL, INC. 90010160 5660836 08/435,544 LEBOVITZ 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original HULINA, AMY

1712 Ex parte SOLTA MEDICAL, INC. 90010161 6,387,380 08/635,202 LEBOVITZ 102/103 WOOD , HERRON & EVANS, LLP (SOLTA) JONES, DWAYNE C original HULINA, AMY

katz, basell, vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11855499 - (D) PRATS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) AL-AWADI, DANAH J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Wiercinski 11314325 - (D) McKELVEY 103 W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Martin 11850571 - (D) MARTIN 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. REDMAN, JERRY E

3665 Ex Parte Takamatsu 10991858 - (D) KERINS 112(1)/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Reliance on this statement in arriving at the conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is improper, as it amounts to using Appellant’s own disclosure in the present application against him. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (CCPA 1982).

Katz, In re, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) 715.01(c), 716.10, 804, 2132, 2132.01, 2133, 2136.05, 2137, 2138.02

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Zawacki et al 11874447 - (D) BONILLA 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Son 11730697 - (D) GARRIS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1308 Ex parte Hitachi Metals, Ltd., Patent Owner and Appellant 90010759 5645651 08/485,183 ROBERTSON 102/obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 103 obviousness-type double patenting BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP JOHNSON, JERRY D original YEE, DEBORAH

If the same invention is not being claimed twice, a second question must be asked. The second analysis question is: Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the patent? In considering the question, the patent disclosure may not be used as prior art. This does not mean that the disclosure may not be used at all. . . . As pointed out above, in certain instances it may be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of terms in a claim. It may also be used as required to answer the second analysis question above. . . . It must be noted that this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined.

In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-442 (CCPA 1970)

In In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008), our reviewing court stated:

Indeed, our predecessor court stated that a patent's disclosure may be used to determine whether an application claim is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in a patent. Vogel, 422 F.2d at 441-42. The court stated that the disclosure may be used to learn the meaning of terms and in “interpreting the coverage of [a] claim.” Id. at 441. It may also be used to answer the question whether claims merely define an obvious variation of what is earlier disclosed and claimed.

Basell, 547 F.3d at 1378.

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leveugle 10470519 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Sheridan Ross PC RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Morris 11022133 - (D) KUMAR 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11030919 - (D) HOFF 103 Ian M. Bennett LERNER, MARTIN

2686 Ex Parte Theuss 11956971 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC BLOUIN, MARK S

2695 Ex Parte Lee et al 10645868 - (D) WARD 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Searls et al 11588682 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. DINH, TUAN T

2885 Ex Parte Yoo et al 11600059 - (D) DIXON 102/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP NEGRON, ISMAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 10732134 - (D) DILLON 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JIANG, CHEN WEN

3769 Ex Parte Van Hal et al 12089198 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LIPITZ, JEFFREY BRIAN