andersen, etter, nievelt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Nishimura et al 11398638 - (D) 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WANG, EUGENIA

1782 Ex Parte Monk et al 11637591 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. KASHNIKOW, ERIK

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Roth 11167452 - (D) JEFFERY 103 McKinney Law, PLLC GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Miao et al 10952071 - (D) POTHIER 103 Intel Corporation Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC HAILU, KIBROM T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Lee et al 11810371 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL

2686 Ex Parte Kim et al 10897015 - (D) MacDONALD 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP TRAN, THANG V

2689 Ex Parte Pieralli 11832780 - (D) McKONE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group SWARTHOUT, BRENT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Brown et al 11712869 - (D) PRATS 101/112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Shirley L. Church, Esq. SMITH, RUTH S

3738 Ex Parte Chudik 11585041 - (D) GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/102 Law Offices of Gregory B. Beggs PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

3766 Ex Parte Satin et al 11383381 - (D) GRIMES 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BERTRAM, ERIC D

3767 Ex Parte Kyvik et al 11706634 - (D) GRIMES 103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. MEHTA, BHISMA

3767 Ex Parte Steube 11070314 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien GRAY, PHILLIP A

3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 12005709 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10631185 - (D) POTHIER 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED SAVLA, ARPAN P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Klotzer et al 12065680 - (D) MILLS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1634 Ex Parte Dapprich et al 11724043 - (D) WALSH 103 Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Bovino, LLP FORMAN, BETTY J

References need not be capable of physical combination in order to show obviousness. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc); see also, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1976) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968) (“There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the tw references to render obvious the claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference.”).

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Classen 10575613 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1715 Ex Parte Tang et al 10895739 - (D) BEST 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PPG Industries, Inc. LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1765 Ex Parte SUZUKI et al 12432832 - (D) SCHAFER 103/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SERGENT, RABON A

1785 Ex Parte Ng et al 11606584 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP RICKMAN, HOLLY C

1787 Ex Parte Remillard et al 11556243 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

1791 Ex Parte RICHARDS 12044520 - (D) KIMLIN 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Segler et al 10306808 - (D) HUME 102 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN AL HASHEMI, SANA A

2159 Ex Parte Gross 11643145 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. CHANG, JEFFREY

2163 Ex Parte Wolczko et al 11648135 - (D) HUME 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK NGUYEN, KIM T

2164 Ex Parte De Mes 10809575 - (D) THOMAS 103 IBM CORPORATION MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Dittrich 10866106 - (D) DIXON 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC POPE, DARYL C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Sheppard et al 11185398 - (D) Per Curiam 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC ROLAND, CHRISTOPHER M

umbarger, ratti, union oil, vas-cath

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Huebner et al 12074169 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. NAGPAUL, JYOTI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Diez et al 11630408 - (D) HORNER 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. LEE, GILBERT Y

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Grove et al 10843636 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 US ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Immordino et al 11639793 - (D) KRATZ 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. BARCENA, CARLOS

1743 Ex Parte Knobel 10519292 - (D) GARRIS 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. BODAWALA, DIMPLE N

1779 Ex Parte Nunes et al 11165474 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

However, it has been established that the claim need not use the same words as the specification, but rather it is enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We, therefore, conclude Appellants’ Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants were in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1504.20, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chidlovskii et al 11170542 - (D) SIU 101/103 FAY SHARPE LLP PAULA, CESAR B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Skraba et al 11152244 - (D) ZECHER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT FAN, HUA

2491 Ex Parte Fineberg 10121188 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Moulin et al 11662106 - (D) HORNER 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor&Zafman LLP SINGH, SUNIL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Rothschild 10850993 - (D) HORNER 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIM, SENG HENG

The difference between using ROM to store a fixed memory of graphics to be displayed by the gaming machine versus downloading the graphics to be displayed on the gaming machine from a remote location (e.g., server) does not affect the overall principle of operation of Ozaki’s gaming machine. See In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31 (CCPA 1969) (finding In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before.”).

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

3766 Ex Parte Daly 11192014 - (D) CALVE 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
 
REHEARING  

DENIED  
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Harris 10216268 - (D) THOMAS 102 CURTIS, NEIL & ELWOOD, LLC CHEN, TE Y

bicon, zumbiel, cortright, case, eaton, richdel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Braun et al 11721077 - (D) KRATZ 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1745 Ex Parte Schonbeck 11152425 - (D) DELMENDO 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Branton et al 11192619 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte CELESTINI 11463918 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Lutz 11354781 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ ... Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04

As the Appellant chose to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the preamble is limiting. See e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“when the 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’” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sonderkaer 10513672 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3634 Ex Parte Ashmus 11207409 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2) 103 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Harris 10531246 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 112(2)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Nederegger et al 11605228 - (D) KILE 103 102/103 Manelli Selter PLLC TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE

3769 Ex Parte Rogers 11448296 - (D) PRATS 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Feng et al 12187049 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Hartman Global IP Law TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1756 Ex Parte Clipstone et al 11375693 - (D) BEST 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1791 Ex Parte Mayville et al 11106082 - (D) NAGUMO 103/obviousness-type double patenting BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

As our reviewing court has explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Videtich 10135300 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 General Motors Corporation ANTHONY LUKE SIMON NGUYEN, THUONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Dick 11619642 - (D) TARTAL 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

Moreover, asserting that what makes an invention commercially successful is a claimed feature that is well known in the art fails to establish a nexus because “the asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing to Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims held obvious despite purported showing of commercial success when patentee failed to show that “such commercial success as its marketed system enjoyed was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art.”)

3611 Ex Parte Parenti et al 12015337 - (D) CAPP 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C KIM, SHIN H

3626 Ex Parte Graves et al 10813230 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DOWELL & DOWELL P.C. COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3689 Ex Parte Cole et al 10408175 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Porter et al 11031421 - (D) DANIELS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MANAHAN, TODD E

CCS, flo healthcare, greenberg, lighting world, MIT2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Greenstein et al 11133943 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. C/O CARDINAL LAW GROUP, LTD GORDON, BRIAN R

1791 Ex Parte Yu et al 11279722 - (D) BEST 103 Hovey Williams LLP PADEN, CAROLYN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte SMITH 12579383 - (D) BENOIT 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Reed Smith LLP CLOUD, JOIYA M

When an inventor has not signaled an intent to invoke § 112, sixth paragraph, by using the term “means,” the presumption against its invocation is strong but can be overcome if “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)). A claim limitation that “essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure” can overcome the presumption. Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374. The presumption may be overcome by a claim limitation that uses a nonstructural term that is “simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure” but is merely a substitute for the term “means for” associated with functional language. Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360. Claim language that further defines a term that otherwise would be a nonce word can denote sufficient structure to avoid construction under § 112, sixth paragraph, MIT v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006), as can a claim limitation that contains a term that “is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure,” Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1359. Nor will claim language invoke a § 112, sixth paragraph, construction if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to be the name for a structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Many devices take their names from the functions they perform.”).

Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 39 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12320348 - (D) ADAMS 103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3771 Ex Parte Daly et al 10864869 - (D) GRIMES 103/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Weber et al 11352643 - (D) BRADEN 102/103 L'Oreal USA VENKAT, JYOTHSNA A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Husemann et al 11917295 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Stading et al 11226960 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 IBM CORPORATION NGUYEN, LOAN T

2175 Ex Parte Burckart et al 10733658 - (D) FRAHM 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LONG, ANDREA NATAE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Whittaker et al 12030590 - (D) GREEN 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON MEHTA, BHISMA

3775 Ex Parte Jackson 11110405 - (D) GREEN 103 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. MCMAHON YANG, ANDREW

3775 Ex Parte Jackson 11187417 - (D) GREEN 103 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. MCMAHON YANG, ANDREW

Tech Center  4100 Patent Training Academy
4100 Ex Parte TOOMEY et al 11421178 - (D) GRIMES 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. WELCH, GARY L

chu, nash, olson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Belanoff 10519008 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Pazos et al 10788066 - (D) KRATZ 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Famolari et al 10144717 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Woods et al 11470060 - (D) NAPPI 103 DAVID PRESSMAN, ESQ. KHAN, SUHAIL

2646 Ex Parte Brown et al 10882389 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. TAYLOR, BARRY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Ujhazy et al 10467601 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Nishihara et al 11251867 - (D) BUI 103 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC ROJAS, MIDYS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Stolyar 11073513 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN, PLLC SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Burgermeister et al 11172527 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 Dergosits & Noah LLP OU, JING RUI

See In re Nash, 230 F.2d 428, 431 (CCPA 1956) (“[I]t is well settled that the drawings of patent applications are not necessarily scale or working drawings....”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”) ...

See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20, 2145,

3777 Ex Parte Field et al 10803882 - (D) GRIMES 103 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO ROY, BAISAKHI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Wallen 10991878 - (D) HOMERE 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Moffatt 11326887 - (D) HOMERE 112(2)/103 Bryan Cave LLP THOMAS, LUCY M

2887 Ex Parte Singleton et al 11455936 - (D) Per Curiam 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP FRECH, KARL D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Colburn et al 11473285 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Covidien LP SKORUPA, VALERIE LYNN  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Kawakami 10711702 - (R) RICE 103 103 DELAND LAW OFFICE LUONG, VINH

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC CALAMITA, HEATHER

janakirama, PPG

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Satoyoshi et al 11322407 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. CORMIER, DAVID G

1716 Ex Parte Lee et al 11459575 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CHANDRA, SATISH

The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” has long been understood to “open[] the claims to the inclusion of ingredients which would not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of appellant’s compositions as defined in the balance of the claim.” In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954 (CCPA 1963). As subsequent decisions have made clear, the specification must be consulted to determine whether the applicant “defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Janakirama-Rao, In re, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ 893 (CCPA 1963) 2111.03, 2163

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.03, 2163

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Rioux et al 11316501 - (D) SCHEINER 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3777 Ex Parte Huo et al 11414759 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Carestream Health, Inc. BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Spartiotis et al 11226877 - (D) DIXON 103 112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON LEE, SHUN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Boric-Lubecke et al 10156817 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/102/103 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Schilling et al 10965349 - (D) PAK 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Marx et al 10765410 - (D) KRIVAK 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) LE, DEBBIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Bowman et al 11491861 - (D) PAK 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

3779 Ex Parte Yokoi et al 11702871 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

bicon, miller3, vogel, innova

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Eghtesady 11429395 - (D) GREEN 103 TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP GRAY, PHILLIP A

Claim language, however, “should not [be] treated as meaningless.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Marek 10957534 - (D) PARVIS 102/103 ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI

A claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 72 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2173.05(g)

2446 Ex Parte Sitaraman et al 11693924 - (D) SIU 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2454 Ex Parte Cope 12035584 - (D) COURTENAY statutory double patenting 101 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP AVELLINO, JOSEPH E

In a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the issue is whether the same invention is being claimed twice. The “same invention” means identical subject matter. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 197 (1894). As expressed by the court in In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970), “[a] good test, and probably the only objective test, for ‘same invention,’ is whether one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.”

Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894) 804

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

2456 Ex Parte Terrill et al 11237584 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Patent Capital Group FAN, HUA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Yuuki 11174741 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2658 Ex Parte Sailer 11870505 - (D) McKONE 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE BORSETTI, GREG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Ford et al 10064962 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Smith et al 10643527 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

hiniker, self

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Duan 12090422 - (D) ADAMS 102 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LEE, BRANDY SCOTT

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Chapoulaud et al 09941151 - (D) JENKS 103 Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Sybron) EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

As stated by our reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998), “the name of the game is the claim.”  It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. 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