trans texas, dealertrack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621637 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Krieg et al 10444817 - (D) HOFF 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2465 Ex Parte Chen et al 11701311 - (D) HOFF 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HSU, ALPUS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Vandanapu et al 10741304 - (D) BUSCH 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN JEANGLAUDE, JEAN BRUNER

2857 Ex Parte Kantzes et al 10435819 - (D) MOORE 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. LE, TOAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Mahler et al 10588183 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Striker Striker & Stenby GALT, CASSI J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Gobush 10898584 - (D) SCANLON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL WONG, JEFFREY KEITH

3742 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11001219 - (D) BAHR 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PAIK, SANG YEOP

3777 Ex Parte Keglovich et al 11562753 - (D) GREEN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DON W. BULSON (BRAI) REMALY, MARK DONALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621999 - (D) FITZPATRICK 251/103 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Forlenza et al 11034549 - (D) DIXON 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2167 Ex Parte Zinda 10440281 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Matthews et al 11054638 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(1)/102/103 112(1)/112(2) Paul C. Matthews PARSLEY, DAVID J

3646 Ex Parte Wazybok et al 11940434 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BURKE, SEAN P

3679 Ex Parte Hoggan 11214705 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 Thompson E. Fehr MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Ish 10913132 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC GINSBERG, OREN ISAAC

3777 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11323537 - (D) GREEN 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) REARDON, ROCHELLE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 10498167 - (D) GREEN 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP KRASS, FREDERICK F

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Napolitano et al 10879696 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 ADDMG - 27975 WANG, EUGENIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Cox et al 11460461 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. HOCKER, JOHN P

2159 Ex Parte Bender 11508567 - (D) BENOIT 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC CASANOVA, JORGE A

2161 Ex Parte Fink et al 10376982 - (D) HOFF 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP NGUYEN, CINDY

2175 Ex Parte Cook et al 10792662 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Belimpasakis et al 10098848 - (D) HOFF 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. NASH, LASHANYA RENEE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Schiaffino et al 10954091 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Maschoff Brennan CURS, NATHAN M

2641 Ex Parte Cole 11537509 - (D) SMITH 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. COSME, NATASHA W

2677 Ex Parte AGUERA y ARCAS 11737001 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. TUNG, KEE M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Gallagher et al 12070514 - (D) MOORE 102/103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

In Trans Texas Holdings, the Federal Circuit provided a clear description of how to construe claims, noting:

In Phillips, we held that while “the specification [should be used] to interpret the meaning of a claim,” courts must not “import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323. We specifically noted that it is improper to “confin[e] the claims to th[e] embodiments” found in the specification, as Trans Texas asks us to do. Id.

In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Federal Circuit noted that “[u]nder Phillips, dictionary definitions are also pertinent. See id. at 1318 (‘[T]he court has observed that dictionaries … can be useful in claim construction.’).” Id. at 1299. The Federal Circuit expressly commented that there were multiple dictionary definitions for the term “directly” but chose the “broadest” definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1299. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision in which the Board selected a dictionary definition that was broader than the examples disclosed in the Specification and was the broader dictionary definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1298-1299.

Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2286, 2686.04

2877 Ex Parte Patel et al 11256377 - (D) HUME 103 Cislo & Thomas LLP BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Schinke et al 11596450 - (D) WOOD 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP PEDDER, DENNIS H

3677 Ex Parte Cox et al 10775746 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP MILLER, WILLIAM L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11011373 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2)/101/103 MORISHITA LAW FIRM, LLC LAYNO, BENJAMIN

Thus, the machine-or-transformation test remains a useful tool for determining whether a claim covers an abstract idea. See e.g., Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F. 3d 1315, 1331 et seq. (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3773 Ex Parte Carrison 10093264 - (D) O’HEARN 112(1)/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MASHACK, MARK F  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Williams 10679088 - (D) OSINSKI 103 W. Edward Johansen HALE, GLORIA M

hogan, angstadt, deckler

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11205638 - (D) SMITH 102/103 ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Brusca 10136961 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 VERIZON PAPPAS, PETER

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Cardon et al 12120451 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP ANDREWS, MICHAEL

2859 Ex Parte Mack 11685913 - (D) STEPHENS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL OMAR, AHMED H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Perini 12366149 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TAWFIK, SAMEH

3778 Ex Parte Gumaste et al 11064201 - (D) GRIMES 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

3779 Ex Parte Menn 11746284 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. NIA, ALIREZA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Schultz et al 11265793 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP PANDYA, SUNIT

3766 Ex Parte Costa Ribalta et al 11575505 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/102 112(2) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Detrick et al 12008588 - (D) SMITH 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION BARR, MICHAEL E

1712 Ex Parte Frechem et al 11359833 - (D) HASTINGS 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY VETERE, ROBERT A

1715 Ex Parte Crouse et al 11657833 - (D) OBERMANN 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1732 Ex Parte Mao et al 11257221 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 Phillips 66 Company SLIFKA, COLIN W

1761 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11339976 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FEELY, MICHAEL J

1762 Ex Parte Han-Adebekun et al 12029909 - (D) McKELVEY 112(1) 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

The Examiner’s finding, even if correct, does not necessarily support a legal conclusion of lack of enablement. In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605-607 (CCPA 1977) (see: Part II. Employment of a Later State of the Art in Testing for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph). In our view, the Examiner’s “yet undiscovered” rationale is not consistent with Hogan and therefore does not support 1 a § 112 rejection based on a lack of enablement commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims.

Cf. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976) (fact that claim may include inoperative embodiments does not per se render claim unpatentable under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112).

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) 2124, 2164.05(a)

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)

1774 Ex Parte Ketchum 11807315 - (D) OBERMANN 103 LyondellBasell Industries SORKIN, DAVID L

1791 Ex Parte Trudsoe 11767617 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103/obviousness-type double patenting CP Kelco US, INC c/o Pete Pappas, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Rawat et al 11278000 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BURKE, JEFF A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Zur et al 11341113 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 THOMAS
HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J

2452 Ex Parte Blaukopf et al 10303805 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP CHANG, JULIAN

2456 Ex Parte Dolbec et al 10522201 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Xtera Communications, Inc. CHANG, TOM Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Wakumoto et al 11084310 - (D) EVANS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

2645 Ex Parte Atkins et al 10878297 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 IBM CORPORATION - RSW (JVL) MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2645 Ex Parte Haumont 10500874 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Coglitore et al 10678006 - (D) POTHIER 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP / SGIC LEA EDMONDS, LISA S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Caveney et al 12035490 - (D) HILL 102 PANDUIT CORP. HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

3653 Ex Parte Zeller 11963394 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Pynson et al 11025406 - (D) O’HEARN 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BLATT, ERIC D

3766 Ex Parte Herbert et al 11414515 - (D) SAINDON 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. KIMBALL, JEREMIAH T

3769 Ex Parte Heinonen et al 10825575 - (D) WALSH 102/103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. YAO, SAMCHUAN CUA

3772 Ex Parte Bonadio et al 10600812 - (D) BONILLA Concurring ADAMS 112(1) 102 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC BIANCO, PATRICIA  

Appellants argue that “In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992), does not support the withholding of the priority date of the '649 application from Appellant” (id. at 25, 32-33).   Regarding Appellants‟ position that Leahy does not qualify as prior art against the pending claims, Deckler is relevant. As stated by the Federal Circuit in this case:

The Board‟s decision that the interference judgment bars Deckler from obtaining a patent for claims that are patentably indistinguishable from the claim on which Deckler lost the interference constituted a permissible application of settled principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Under those principles, a judgment in an action precludes relitigation of claims or issues that were or could have been raised in that proceeding. Similarly, this court has applied interference estoppel to bar the assertion of claims for inventions that are patentably indistinct from those in an interference that the applicant had lost.

In re Deckler, 977 F.2d at 1452 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).  

Deckler, In re, 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 715, 2308.03

larson, NTP, jasinski, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Jerg et al 10578386 - (D) METZ 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

1714 Ex Parte Rosenbauer et al 11793937 - (D) TIMM 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WHATLEY, KATELYN B

It is a matter of ordinary skill to remove a feature that is not being used.  As stated in In re Larson, 340 F. 2d 965 (CCPA 1965) "If this additional feature is not desired, it would seem a matter of obvious choice to eliminate it and the function it serves."

Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) 2144.04

1767 Ex Parte Clatty et al 11292193 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC RIOJA, MELISSA A

1787 Ex Parte Hipszki et al 12525821 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HUANG, CHENG YUAN

See In re NTP, INC., 654 F.3d 1279, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is axiomatic that for anticipation, each and every claim limitation must be explicitly or inherently disclosed in the prior art.” (citations omitted)); cf. In re Jasinski, 2013 WL 563285 at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential) (“The government, however, has failed to establish anticipation. The Adams reference does not disclose verifying the accuracy of logical-to-physical mapping software. Adams merely discloses a BIST routine for detecting errors within a memory device by comparing memory contents with a predetermined bit pattern. The fact that it states that the output of the mapping can be used in additional ‘failure analysis’ is not the same thing as disclosing those additional types of failure analysis.”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 10-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Brydon et al 11132159 - (D) ANDERSON 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. OBERLY, VAN HONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Widera et al 10507179 - (D) HOFF 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) LIN, WEN TAI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Mueller et al 10348306 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3652 Ex Parte Prokop 11758816 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (MDMMY) CHIN, PAUL T

3652 Ex Parte Hinds 11581858 - (D) FLOYD 103 DEERE & COMPANY ADAMS, GREGORY W

3672 Ex Parte Wesson et al 11469255 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 MARATHON OIL COMPANY C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK E. EBEL HUTCHINS, CATHLEEN R

3684 Ex Parte Averill et al 11465901 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY ALTSCHUL, AMBER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Beutter et al 11473903 - (D) ADAMS 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP BECCIA, CHRISTOPHER J

3775 Ex Parte Farrar et al 10524800 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(1)/102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Henze et al 12659629 - (D) TIMM 102/103 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LEONARD, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Spahn 11580768 - (D) POTHIER 102 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION SONG, HOON K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Mazumder et al 11668752 - (D) SPAHN 103 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EVANS, GEOFFREY S

3765 Ex Parte Kronenbeger 10910680 - (D) HORNER 103 112(1)/102/103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

c.f., In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386-87 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (reversing a rejection because the printed matter and the circularity of the underlying substrate were interrelated so as to produce a new product).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01

3767 Ex Parte Schnall 11658650 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3767 Ex Parte Muni et al 11355512 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON - ACCLARENT, INC. HALL, DEANNA K

3777 Ex Parte Patch 10800957 - (D) WALSH 103 103 ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (GEMS) CHAO, ELMER M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11908431 - (D) HOUSEL 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. YEE, DEBORAH

1741 Ex Parte Alary et al 11624057 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

1776 Ex Parte Hilgren et al 11249557 - (D) PAK 103 ECOLAB USA INC. STELLING, LUCAS A

1789 Ex Parte Alary et al 11469589 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GRAY, JILL M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Youden 10943580 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAN, ALVIN H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Bartal et al 11502188 - (D) MORGAN 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP GYORFI, THOMAS A

2443 Ex Parte Uthe 10890022 - (D) BRADEN 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP MIRZA, ADNAN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2877 Ex Parte Drabarek 10591502 - (D) ZECHER 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LYONS, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Barber et al 09903444 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3688 Ex Parte Endler et al 10820832 - (D) PETRAVICK 102 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP WEISS, JOHN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Ziccarelli 11025394 - (D) CAPP 103 C. Paul Maliszewski, P.E. MOHANDESI, JILA M

3767 Ex Parte Jones et al 10738477 - (D) ADAMS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Atala et al 11048097 - (D) JENKS 103 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte KIRCHHEINER et al 12169229 - (R) GARRIS 103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

arkley, boston scientific

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Walter 11388411 - (D) DILLON 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ KIM, PAUL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Edwards et al 11755019 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 FREDERICK W. GIBB, III GIBB & RILEY, LLC PHAM, THANH V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Lembcke et al 11680717 - (D) HORNER 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. / Weatherford FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Hartley et al 10396676 - (D) SCHEINER 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

3751 Ex Parte Takasu 11889249 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(1)/102/103 SUGHRUE-265550 LE, HUYEN D

3766 Ex Parte Ghanem et al 11744455 - (D) GREEN 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) PORTER, JR, GARY A

3767 Ex Parte Cindrich et al 10916649 - (D) GREEN 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

(Ans. 13 (citing Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not find the citation of that case, however, to be sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness.

That is, while the Federal Circuit stated in Boston Scientific Scimed that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness,” Boston Scientific Scimed, 554 F.3d at 991, the Examiner has not explained how the facts in that case would lead to the same conclusion in the instant appeal.
3775 Ex Parte Cook et al 11546391 - (D) GRIMES 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte OHARE 12011773 - (D) PRATS 103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Newnam et al 10142756 - (D) ARPIN 102/103 103 ERICSSON INC. NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

Moreover, to the extent that the Examiner relies on teachings selectively drawn from different embodiments of Dougherty to disclose the disputed limitations of claim 9, this is improper in the context of an anticipation rejection. Application of Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88 (CCPA 1972). In Arkley, the court found that rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are proper where the subject matter claimed “is not identically disclosed or described” (emphasis ours) in “the prior art,” indicating that rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are proper only when the claimed subject matter is identically disclosed or described in “the prior art.” Thus, for the instant rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to have been proper, the [cited] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [system] or direct those skilled in the art to the [system] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. Such picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, where the applicant must be afforded an opportunity to rebut with objective evidence any inference of obviousness which may arise from the similarity of the subject matter which he claims to the prior art, but it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection. Id.

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Marzetta 11553191 - (D) PARVIS 112(2) 112(2)/102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Ames et al 11106192 - (D) BUNTING 102/103 112(2) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Burkus et al 11725618 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 Medtronic, Inc (Spinal/Krieg DeVault) LAWSON, MATTHEW JAMES

3778 Ex Parte Kleman 11022379 - (D) SCHEINER 103 102/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Alexandrovichserov et al 11607660 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP FORREST, MICHAEL

1741 Ex Parte Habik et al 10544182 - (D) SMITH 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC CORDRAY, DENNIS R

1745 Ex Parte Deka 11649714 - (D) SMITH 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1761 Ex Parte Kinscherf et al 11532227 - (D) SMITH 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

1767 Ex Parte Heuer et al 11157092 - (D) DELMENDO 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

1793 Ex Parte Dohl et al 11830507 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Hovey Williams LLP GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Pinder 11407653 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino L.L.P. Cisco Systems, Inc. LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2436 Ex Parte Coppola et al 11227806 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 IBM CORPORATION NGUYEN, TRONG H

2476 Ex Parte Moriarty et al 10285069 - (D) KUMAR 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP HALIYUR, VENKATESH N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Yamada 11294406 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC YANG, QIAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Seo et al 11267576 - (D) KRIVAK 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. PHAM, LONG

2858 Ex Parte Morrison et al 11555373 - (D) McKONE 112(1)/103 WesternGeco L.L.C. PHAN, HUY Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Jung et al 11888614 - (D) PRAISS 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3626 Ex Parte Jung et al 11486973 - (D) PRAISS 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER
3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11888627 - (D) PRAISS 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC WOODS, TERESA S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Czerner et al 10556644 - (D) MARTIN 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

3767 Ex Parte Morris et al 11754759 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

3771 Ex Parte Gloag et al 11743723 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SKORUPA, VALERIE LYNN

3773 Ex Parte Dreyfuss 11224060 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP MASHACK, MARK F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Grosz et al 10139058 - (D) HOFF 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ALAGHEBAND, ABBAS H

mannesmann, berenter, geneva, symbol techonologies, pfizer3

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11052886 - (D) OWENS 103 WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1735 Ex Parte Fukaya et al 12152505 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP IP, SIKYIN

1762 Ex Parte Schorm et al 12279444 - (D) McKELVEY 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, VU ANH

The fact that the overall process is defined by the transitional term “comprising” does not broaden the type of emulsifiers which are recited in the Markush Group. See (1) Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (cited by applicant at Brief, page 11) and (2) Berenter v. Quigg, 737 F. Supp. 5 (D. D.C. 1988) (a § 145 civil action in which the Commissioner was a party, applying Mannesmann).

Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2111.03

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Brock et al 11475603 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 Anova Law Group, PLLC SINGH, AMRESH

2162 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11621238 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott ALAM, SHAHID AL

2166 Ex Parte Liu et al 10810152 - (D) CHEN 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Shuman et al 10798632 - (D) SPAHN 103 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/Nokia AHMED, MASUD

3721 Ex Parte Smith et al 12034320 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 MAYBACK & HOFFMAN, P.A. CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3723 Ex Parte Duescher 11029761 - (D) SPAHN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3729 Ex Parte Faatz et al 11958064 - (D) CAPP 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION TRINH, MINH N

3731 Ex Parte Hartley 10962766 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3767 Ex Parte Rioux et al 10392545 - (D) HORNER 102/103 Vista IP Law Group LLP GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Endepols et al 10513525 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11396655 - (D) KIMLIN 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP MOHADDES, LADAN

1761 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 12834131 - (D) KIMLIN 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1762 Ex Parte Seidel et al 11633972 - (D) McKELVEY 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC YOON, TAE H

1785 Ex Parte Tanahashi et al 12218683 - (D) HASTINGS 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LISA N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Godlewski 11612524 - (D) PARVIS 102 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY MIAN, OMER S

2481 Ex Parte Cronin 10680830 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/102 101 Timothy Raymond Cronin HARVEY, DAVID E

2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10074765 - (D) HOFF 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Tischer et al 11267092 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Robinson 11418756 - (D) DANIELS 103 Dorr, Carson & Birney, P.C. BREIER, KRYSTINE E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Kaufman et al 11042312 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

3778 Ex Parte Jordan 10522721 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

The "United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals... fashioned a doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting (also known as "obviousness-type" double patenting) to prevent issuance  of a patent on claims that are nearly identical to claims in an earlier patent. This doctrine prevents an applicant from extending patent protection for an invention beyond the statutory term by claiming a slight variant. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline, 349 F. 3d 1373, 1377-1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

With regard to double patenting, we recently explained that 35 U.S.C. § 121 (1988) will not apply to remove the parent as a reference where the principle of consonance is violated: Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the "independent and distinct inventions" that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained. Though the claims may be amended, they must not be so amended as to bring them back over the line imposed in the restriction requirement. Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F. 2d 1569, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

There is no suggestion, however, in the legislative history of section 121 that the safe-harbor provision was, or needed to be, directed at anything but divisional applications. The commentary and materials published since section 121's enactment similarly contain no suggestion that section 121 was meant to cover any applications other than divisionals. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F. 3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) We conclude that the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications. Id. at 1362

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 804.01, 814

Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 76 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2190

3779 Ex Parte Gazdzinski 09817842 - (D) KERINS 112(2)/102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUBECKER, JOHN P

3788 Ex Parte De Laforcade 10914168 - (D) SAINDON 103 Oliff & Berridge, PLC (with Nony) REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN