univ. of pittsburgh, edwards2

WO 97/41803

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Jonas 11221622 - (D) RUGGIERO 102/103 IBM - GATES & COOPER LLP BROWN, SHEREE N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Hutchison 11110216 - (D) DANIELS 112(2)/101/102/103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE JENNISON, BRIAN W

3754 Ex Parte Baltes 10508661 - (D) SPAHN 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. HOOK, JAMES F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Kuhlman et al 11726457 - (D) GARRIS 103 obviousness-type double patenting DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Vayhinger 12119874 - (D) NAPPI 102 102 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP LE, JOHN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Geistert et al 11185144 - (D) FLOYD 103 103 ARC PATENTS BERTRAM, ERIC D

3767 Ex Parte Neftel et al 10565810 - (D) GREEN 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WILSON, LARRY ROSS

3781 Ex Parte Bezek 11608170 - (D) SPAHN 103 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Kimmel et al 10951644 - (D) SMITH 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Walton et al 10375162 - (D) ARBES 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Pallonen et al 10446144 - (D) CURCURI 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP IQBAL, KHAWAR

2654 Ex Parte Boor 10797507 - (D) DANG 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP OLANIRAN, FATIMAT O

2673 Ex Parte Redert et al 10542137 - (D) FISHMAN 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SINGH, SATWANT K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Miremadi 10738807 - (D) NEW 102 BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. VAN ROY, TOD THOMAS

2872 Ex Parte Wang 11452418 - (D) BENOIT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC SHAFER, RICKY D

2885 Ex Parte Mi et al 12074979 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials LLC LEE, JONG SUK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Wang et al 11074175 - (D) KIM 101/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global FLEISCHER, MARK A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Rickey 11704664 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 YOUNG BASILE ROST, ANDREW J

3765 Ex Parte Carroll 12117376 - (D) CAPP 103 Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP LALLI, MELISSA LYNN

3766 Ex Parte Libbus et al 10746135 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC SARCIONE, JESSICA LYNN

3767 Ex Parte Hood et al 11335911 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

See University of Pittsburgh v. Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The specification may impart a definition that differs from a term's ordinary meaning only when it demonstrates "an intent to deviate from" that meaning.” (emphasis added).)
...
See Edwards Lifescience Ag v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F.3d 1305, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A]n applicant for a patent need not expressly set forth in his specification subject matter which is commonly understood by persons skilled in the art.”)

3773 Ex Parte Rakos et al 11385621 - (D) ADAMS 103 BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC MASHACK, MARK F

ratti

US 2006/0184198 A1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3767 Ex Parte Nason et al 11726330 - (D) WALSH 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES


3767 Ex Parte COHEN 12043273 - (D) GRIMES 103 ROACH BROWN MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C. GILBERT, ANDREW M

Cf. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (“Once appellant had taught how this could be done, the redesign may, by hindsight, seem to be obvious to one having ordinary skills in the [relevant] art. However, when viewed as of the time appellant’s invention was made, and without the benefit of appellant’s disclosure, we find nothing in the record which suggests appellant’s [invention].”).

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Humphreys et al 11582596 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) 102/103 Pierce Atwood KINSEY WHITE, NICOLE ERIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 12232895 - (D) PRATS 103/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1624 Ex Parte Argade et al 11280066 - (D) ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP RAO, DEEPAK R

1625 Ex Parte Benovsky et al 12334124 - (D) ADAMS 103 Mark R. Buscher MABRY, JOHN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Bennah et al 11538231 - (D) SMITH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP RIEGLER, PATRICK F

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10425941 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/101/103 Reed Smith LLP NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM

2435 Ex Parte Chen et al 10769173 - (D) POTHIER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. PALIWAL, YOGESH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2694 Ex Parte Ozawa 10367849 - (D) NAPPI 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Palmatier 10975614 - (D) PARVIS 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC YAN, REN LUO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Shear et al 11435425 - (D) HORNER 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ELISCA, PIERRE E

3734 Ex Parte Weizman et al 11404736 - (D) FREDMAN 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC HOLLM, JONATHAN A

3739 Ex Parte Scholl et al 11717273 - (D) SNEDDEN 103/obviousness-type double patenting WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3777 Ex Parte Hastings et al 10844056 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C CHAO, ELMER M

saab, dunbar

2004/0201087 A1


custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pepper 11426314 - (D) EVANS 102 LAW OFFICES (San Jose) PHAN, TUANKHANH D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Sima 11056928 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WRIGHT, BRYAN F

A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. U.S., 434 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Chang et al 11772208 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 Lin & Associates WAGNER, JENNY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Tang et al 11726432 - (D) PRATS 102 FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN THANH, QUANG D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Faecke et al 11472000 - (D) McKELVEY 102 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC TOSCANO, ALICIA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte TERRERO 11139338 - (D) PRATS 112(1) Pabst Patent Group LLP CHANDRAKUMAR, NIZAL S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Doerr et al 12632285 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC (CGG) HARDEE, JOHN R

1765 Ex Parte Schuft et al 12447612 - (D) PRAISS 103 Henkel Corporation SELLERS, ROBERT E

1765 Ex Parte Obrecht et al 09739034 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 LANXESS CORPORATION SERGENT, RABON A

1778 Ex Parte Schaupp et al 11986358 - (D) TORCZON 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global DRODGE, JOSEPH W

[T]he specification may provide controlling definitions or context for avoiding ambiguities. White v. Dunbar 119 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1886) (context, but not at the expense of actual claim language).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Boylan et al 11442670 - (D) McKEOWN 102 ROPES & GRAY LLP HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2432 Ex Parte Cusey et al 11176620 - (D) ZECHER 103 NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Becker et al 10564607 - (D) WINSOR 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP SHERWIN, RYAN W
 
REMAND
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Charati et al 11689228 - (D) OBERMANN 112(2)/102/103 37 CFR 41.50(e) CANTOR COLBURN LLP VALDEZ, DEVE E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10059469 - (D) WINSOR 101 37 CFR 41.50(b) MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Schuster 10575997 - (D) KILE 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP ELKINS, GARY E

schreiber, altenpohl, fessmann, marosi, schumer

US 5,203,346

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte JEONG et al 12720430 - (D) JEFFERY 251/112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

These conversions from active steps to functional language effectively broaden the patented apparatus claims to merely require that the recited apparatus elements (e.g., “connection manager,” “classifier,” “service manager,” etc.) are capable of performing the intended function—not that they actually perform that function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the present reissue application is effectively a broadening reissue application.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...

In any event, corrections to claims via reissue to avoid potential indefiniteness have been judicially sanctioned, albeit in another context, to avoid having to rely on implication or litigation. See In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 1156-57 (CCPA 1974) (“Lack of antecedent basis in a claim could render it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and . . . a patentee should be allowed to correct an error or ambiguity in a claim without having to rely on implication or litigation.” (emphases added)).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Ng et al 11742563 - (D) CALVE 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCLAIN, GERALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Damera-Venkata 10698895 - (D) POTHIER 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ali et al 11437466 - (D) DIXON 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PHILLIPS, FORREST M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Pechtold et al 10843013 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 102/103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3777 Ex Parte BLUMHOFER et al 11548848 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP REMALY, MARK DONALD

3777 Ex Parte Benndorf et al 11724657 - (D) WALSH 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte DiLorenzo 11159842 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting NEUROVISTA / SHAY GLENN SIMS, JASON M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Bianchi 10806710 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103 HUGH P. GORTLER MERSHON, JAYNE L

1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11415044 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gonzalez 11064490 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Carlos Gonzalez TELAN, MICHAEL R

2461 Ex Parte Lauber 11757583 - (D) ZECHER 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. MIAN, OMER S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Dale et al 10340290 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DANNEMAN, PAUL

3656 Ex Parte Gaechter 10524298 - (D) GREENHUT 103 EGBERT LAW OFFICES PILKINGTON, JAMES

The USPTO bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)

3671 Ex Parte Suggate 10519546 - (D) CAPP 103 Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP HARTMANN, GARY S

3682 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11712276 - (D) KIM 102/103 YAHOO! OVERTURE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Morgenstern et al 10585162 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC PRAGER, JESSE M

3769 Ex Parte Odrich et al 10600027 - (D) PRATS 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

3788 Ex Parte Benson et al 11796384 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHU, KING M

3788 Ex Parte Busch et al 12092646 - (D) KAUFFMAN obviousness-type double patenting 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

The body of each claim describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).

IPXL, schreiber, ratti

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Itou et al 10581858 - (D) TIMM 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP LEONG, JONATHAN G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte White et al 11213349 - (D) GARRIS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX MILLER, MICHAEL G

1761 Ex Parte Terada et al 10823654 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE-265550 DOUYON, LORNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chen et al 11874758 - (D) McKONE 101/103 IBM CORPORATION BELCHER, HERMAN A

We note that if we were to construe claim 8 to require selecting email addresses on a user computer system, the result would be a claim that impermissibly recites a method step and apparatus limitations. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

2453 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10253283 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC NGUYEN, THU HA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Foth et al 11321589 - (D) KIM 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. HAYES, JOHN W

3688 Ex Parte Wirth et al 10277162 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Phan 10986820 - (D) WOOD dissenting SPAHN 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company PICKETT, JOHN G

A claim reciting an apparatus may be anticipated by a reference disclosing a device that includes each and every structural limitation in the claim and that is capable of performing each and every functional limitation in the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (upholding the Board’s affirmance of a rejection under section 102(b) on the basis of a finding that a device disclosed in a prior art reference was capable of performing a function which the appellant alleged to distinguish the appellant’s apparatus from the device).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...

I am persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s modification of “provid[ing] the APA with a freely movable blocking member” 17 as taught by vom Hofe would render APA unfit for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of APA. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (Emphasis added)). In Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. Id. at 811-13. This modification fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how a sealed interface was attained.

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

fox, kunzmann

WO 02/30293 A1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Goh et al 10664069 - (D) BENOIT 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DADA, BEEMNET W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Fejfar et al 11412584 - (D) BENOIT 102 Cozen O'Connor CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Chikyu 12003588 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP ANGWIN, DAVID PATRICK

3735 Ex Parte Mamo et al 11152898 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 Bingham McCutchen LLP BURK, CATHERINE E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Riley et al 10867157 - (D) ANDERSON 102 102 JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. DADA, BEEMNET W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Manz et al 10559958 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Pennan & Green, LLP BALL, JOHN C

See In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407 (CCPA 1973) (affirming the Board’s decision: “In this court appellant has not denied the existence of the facts on which the examiner rested his obviousness rejection nor the added facts of which the board took judicial notice.”); In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (“[T]he examiner appears to have considered thoroughly this assertion, and to have found otherwise. Since appellant has not shown this finding to be clearly erroneous, we accept it as fact.”).

Fox, In re, 471 F.2d 1405, 176 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1973) 2144.03

1761 Ex Parte Pan et al 12410219 - (D) OWENS 102 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Sutioso et al 11895974 - (D) ZECHER 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. LIU, SHUWANG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Okamura et al 10887920 - (D) OWENS 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC CORBETT, JOHN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Laible et al 10791550 - (D) HORNER 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION TRAN, HANH VAN

3672 Ex Parte Ding et al 11332707 - (D) HILL 112(1)/112(2)/103 J. RAY MCDERMOTT, S.A. ANDRISH, SEAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Eckert 12008310 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Butzel Long ROSEN, ERIC J

3742 Ex Parte Taillandier 11791879 - (D) PLENZLER 112(2)/101 102/103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC PASCHALL, MARK H

borden

US 2006/0040011 A1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Signaoff et al 11403548 - (D) GONSALVES 103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P POPHAM, JEFFREY D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Schade et al 12184550 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. ROGERS, MARTIN K

1793 Ex Parte Newsom 11561015 - (D) BEST 103 112(2) HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP MUKHOPADHYAY, BHASKAR

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a Reply Brief unless the Appellant establishes good cause for not presenting the argument earlier.  See Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Bi et al 10854019 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC MILLER, MICHAEL G

1745 Ex Parte Reuter 11618050 - (D) PRAISS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EFTA, ALEX B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Harville et al 11455148 - (D) BUI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LE, BAO-LUAN Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sarbo et al 11899066 - (D) PLENZLER 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KUMAR, RAKESH

dealertrack, cybersource

4813934

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11282252 - (D) FREDMAN 102 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Sima et al 11461767 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OKEKE, IZUNNA

2441 Ex Parte Mao et al 11850192 - (D) COURTENAY 101/103 Howard H. Sheerin, Attorney at Law HIGA, BRENDAN Y

2445 Ex Parte Hofmann et al 11563897 - (D) ANDERSON 101/102 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

“[A]dding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible” where the claims “are silent as to how a computer aids the method, the extent to which a computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method.” DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see MPEP § 2106(II)(B)(1)(a). Integral use of a machine or apparatus to achieve performance of the method weighs toward eligibility, as compared to where the machine or apparatus is merely an object on which the method operates, which weighs against eligibility. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP § 2106(II)(B)(1)(b) .

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte Mani et al 11736562 - (D) BUSCH 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP / AMAT ABDELAZIEZ, YASSER A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3742 Ex Parte Maev et al 11221545 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 Chrysler Group LLC JENNISON, BRIAN W

vas-cath, wang

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Czarnowski et al 11888826 - (D) CALVE 112(1) Joseph E. Mueth Law Corporation SWINEHART, EDWIN L

Under proper circumstances, drawings alone may provide a written description of an invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 866 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (drawings provided substantial evidence of disclosure of leadless SIMMs).

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

Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 26 USPQ2d 1767 (Fed. Cir. 1993)  2164.01,  2163,  2164.06,  2164.06(b)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Vecerina et al 11101154 - (D) TARTAL 102/103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3773 Ex Parte Dreyfuss et al 11097180 - (D) GRIMES 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP DORNBUSCH, DIANNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Imielinski 11233745 - (D) McKONE 102/103 De Klerk & Lundmark YEN, SYLING

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Bothe et al 10543645 - (D) JEFFERY 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIRMA, FEKADESELASS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ramirez et al 11746939 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP MUSLEH, MOHAMAD A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Schrader 11737405 - (D) CAPP 102/103 WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. HAYES, KRISTEN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Tran et al 11400595 - (D) GRIMES 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP BUI, VY Q

3781 Ex Parte Huang et al 11894140 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY WEAVER, SUE A

applied materials

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1734 Ex Parte Hooks et al 10902627 - (D) GARRIS 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

"A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."

In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F. 3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Newman 11743930 - (R) GERSTENBLITH 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU

3715 Ex Parte Carro 10993231 - (R) TARTAL 103 IBM CORPORATION IPLAW SHCB/256-3 FRISBY, KESHA

eynde, ahlert, brown

DE 4,024,941

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Damsohn 10592584 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC GAMINO, CARLOS J

First, the predecessor to our reviewing court explained in In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370 (CCPA 1973), that facts constituting the state of the art are normally subject to the possibility of rational disagreement among reasonable people and are not amenable to the taking of official notice. Second, in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) the court held that assertions of technical fact in areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some reference work [admitted in evidence] and recognized as standard in the pertinent art. Moreover, the court held, facts officially noticed should not constitute the principal evidence upon which a rejection is based. Thus, mere assertions of fact, unsupported by evidence of record and an explanation, are not persuasive.

Eynde, In re, 480 F.2d 1364, 178 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1973) 2144.03

Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) 2144.03

As the predecessor to our reviewing court has explained, “[w]hether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 59 CCPA 1036, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).”

Brown, In re, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) 2113, 2183

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Ganesh et al 10866433 - (D) QUINN 102/103 ORACLE HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Lee et al 11200847 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC LAN, TZU-HSIANG