nuijten, chakrabarty, ferguson2, gottschalk, miller2, aristocrat, function media, finisar

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Lorentsen et al 10553869 - (D) PRATS 103 HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. SWOPE, SHERIDAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Schilder 10580643 - (D) KRATZ 102 SHELL OIL COMPANY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Chan et al 10907161 - (D) HUGHES 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NOFAL, CHRISTOPHER P

2161 Ex Parte Elsaesser et al 11168551 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP NGUYEN, CINDY

2193 Ex Parte Eichenberger et al 10919005 - (D) HUGHES 103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) WANG, JUE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Ross et al 10371338 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 37 CFR 41.40(b) 112(2) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED NGUYEN, THUONG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Chow et al 11265918 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Zilbershtein et al 11482608 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AVAYA, Inc. Cochran Freund & Young GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11083913 - (D) HOFF 102/103 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC DASGUPTA, SOUMYA

Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:

i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007);

ii. a naturally occurring organism, Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308;

iii. a human per se, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011);

iv. a legal contractual agreement between two parties, see In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cert. denied);

v. a game defined as a set of rules;

vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72;

vii. a company, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366; and

viii. a mere arrangement of printed matter, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, ___ (CCPA 1969).

MPEP 2106

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

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) , 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107.01

Ferguson,In re, 558 F.3d 1359, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2106

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) 706.03(a), 2106,

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10540597 - (D) ZECHER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CHOKSHI, PINKAL R

2443 Ex Parte Bravery et al 10555433 - (D) HUGHES 103 101/103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC SHIN, KYUNG H

2452 Ex Parte Dresden 10776689 - (D) HUGHES 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, THU V

2456 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11168650 - (D) McKONE 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHANG, TOM Y

2456 Ex Parte Newton et al 10598988 - (D) MOORE 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MCADAMS, BRAD

For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under § 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc, 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform the general purpose computer or processor to a special purpose processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Id. at 1338. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 23 (5th ed. 2002). An applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

An indefiniteness rejection under § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or processor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38. Mere reference to a general purpose computer or processor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or to “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function is not an adequate disclosure. Id. at 1334; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41. In addition, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification, while saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that those functions are performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337. The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose processor to a special purpose processor so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1338.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Moss et al 11553671 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BAHL, SANGEETA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Swanson et al 11527188 - (D) KILE 112(1)/112(2)/103 PRATT & WHITNEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS c/o CPA Global KIM, TAE JUN

3752 Ex Parte Roreger et al 10534797 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug HWU, DAVIS D  

REEXAMINATION  
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex parte PROTECTCONNECT, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90011275 6341981 09/553,425 ARBES 102/103 DLA PIPER LLP US WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GILMAN, ALEXANDER
 
3686 Ex Parte CAREFUSION 303, INC. Ex Parte Schlotterbeck et al 90011697 90/009,912 7,835,927 10/331,034 FITZPATRICK 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP FOSTER, JIMMY G original RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11648944 - (R) FLOYD 102/103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD. FACC HICKS, VICTORIA J
 

rouffet, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Komatsu et al 11064149 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP KRUER, KEVIN R

In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained);

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 1216.01

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11462082 - (D) CURCURI 103 IBM CORPORATION SAEED, USMAAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Krumme et al 11536237 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP ANDERSON, GUY G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Ogilvie 11532514 - (D) SMEGAL 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 TUROCY & WATSON, LLP HOLLY, JOHN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Lahti et al 10632026 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO

3779 Ex Parte Saadat et al 11036029 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 USGI Medical, Inc. KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Brust et al 12029972 - (D) McKELVEY 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY HEINCER, LIAM J

1778 Ex Parte Lauer 11990929 - (D) TORCZON 103 Roylance Abrams Berdo & Goodman KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Manczak et al 11654148 - (D) EVANS 103 Oracle America/ SUN / STK BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte vonDoenhoff et al 11130557 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC INGVOLDSTAD, BENNETT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Chigusa et al 11752500 - (D) WEATHERLY 112(2)/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Huddleston 10765501 - (D) KILE 112(2)/103 DAVID E. HUDDLESTON BUI, LUAN KIM

3767 Ex Parte Vaillancourft et al 12321900 - (D) MILLS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

REHEARING
 
GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson 11831625 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EVERAGE, KEVIN D

norgren, medichem, mems tech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Stadtlander et al 11441893 - (D) OWENS 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte McNeal et al 10153116 - (D) SAADAT 102 Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854442 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. HSU, ALPUS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Dumarest 11352893 - (D) FRAHM 102 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Boomershine et al 11179405 - (D) LORIN 101/112(2)/102/103 IBM CORPORATION RAVETTI, DANTE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Mandavilli et al 10998819 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MAI, KEVIN S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte MARTIN 11740974 - (D) NAGUMO 103 INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1763 Ex Parte Easter et al 11655144 - (D) McKELVEY 103 BLANK ROME LLP LACLAIR LYNX, DARCY DANIELLE

1774 Ex Parte Sell et al 11481746 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO MCCAIG, BRIAN A

1776 Ex Parte BARRATT 12708669 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11130773 - (D) Per curiam 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2169 Ex Parte Bicheno et al 11593888 - (D) BUI 102 BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC ROBINSON, GRETA LEE

2174 Ex Parte Rice 11372973 - (D) DILLON 103 INTUIT - OSHA - LIANG L.L.P. TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Vogel 11135194 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC DUFFIELD, JEREMY S

See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).

2456 Ex Parte Rhodes et al 10671234 - (D) ANDERSON 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BATES, KEVIN T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte McKellar 10564306 - (D) FRAHM 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. NGUYEN, HAU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Gu 12131982 - (D) CLEMENTS 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HOUSTON, ADAM D

The plain meaning of “coupled” encompasses both direct and indirect coupling. See MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 447 Fed. Appx. 142, 151-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (declining to limit “electrically coupled” to direct coupling);4 see also US Patent Application Publication 2002/0116139, at ¶ 0038 (“Herein, the phrase ‘coupled with’ is defined to mean directly connected to or indirectly connected with through one or more intermediate components.”)

4 Cf. Ex parte Palomar, No. 2009-011698, 2011 WL 3666727, at *2 (BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (construing a claim reciting “directly coupled” as excluding indirect coupling).

2819 Ex Parte Monro 11332777 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WILLIAMS, HOWARD L

2853 Ex Parte Stelter et al 11072781 - (D) FRAHM 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY LIANG, LEONARD S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Richter 11475439 - (D) DANIELS 102 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES LE, TAN

3635 Ex Parte Hileman et al 11521179 - (D) McCARTHY 103 NOVA Chemicals Inc./Karen S. Lockhart WENDELL, MARK R

3671 Ex Parte Hamburger et al 11691955 - (D) DANIELS 103 Tomlinson Rust McKinstry Grable RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Le Bot et al 10555745 - (D) WOOD 103 112(1)/112(2) American Air Liquide, Inc. ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM  

See Norgren v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim drawn to a “four-sided, generally rectangular clamp” requires that “the clamp as a whole, and not merely portions of it, must be four-sided and generally rectangular”).

aslanian, merck, keller, klosak, mcclain, fout, siebentritt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Young et al 11853855 - (D) HASTINGS 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102 FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC DUDLEY, ARCHER DAVIS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Weiss et al 12288560 - (D) HANLON 103 103 M.P. Williams PILLAY, DEVINA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 10873501 - (D) HORNER 103 103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

See also In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (“a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent.”) (citations omitted).

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) 2125

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

3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12059495 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 707.07(f), 716.02,  2143.02,  2144.08,  2144.09, 2145

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f), 2145

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Skinlo 10665687 - (D) HASTINGS 103 QUALLION LLC RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1762 Ex Parte Stueven et al 12438835 - (D) McKELVEY 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ENG, ELIZABETH

In order to rely on an alleged expected result (or a "substantial effect"), applicant must show that it in fact gets that result. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention). See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 429 (1891) (conclusive evidence needed to establish new function).

1763 Ex Parte Okada et al 12531655 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 Styron/BHGL USELDING, JOHN E

1771 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 12019276 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC STEIN, MICHELLE

1774 Ex Parte Zetlmeisl et al 11601401 - (D) METZ 103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC ROBINSON, RENEE E

1784 Ex Parte Munro et al 11758765 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

1785 Ex Parte Hood 11546067 - (D) OBERMANN 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).

Fout, In re, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) 2129, 2143.01, 2144.06

1791 Ex Parte Ikuina et al 11498154 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PADEN, CAROLYN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lim 11615637 - (D) DANG 103 AKA CHAN LLP REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Lee 11353584 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2477 Ex Parte Sadot 11238924 - (D) EVANS 102/103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte SONG et al 11564760 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC CHI, SUBERR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte McGee 11117022 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LUONG, PETER
 
REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 GARRY IAN HOLLOWAY Requester and Appellant v. GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001542 7,571,060 10/952,386 SIU 102/103 DLA PIPER US LLP NASSER, ROBERT L original LE, JOHN H

tronzo, CIAS, norian, gray

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Jonas 11332423 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 IBM GATES & COOPER LLP BROWN, SHEREE N

2169 Ex Parte Peters 11615510 - (D) HUME 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP SAEED, USMAAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Voeller et al 10880667 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HUGHES, SAMUEL T

“In order for a disclosure to be inherent, however, the missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present in the ... specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure.” Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 47 USPQ2d 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1998)  201.11,  2163,  2163.03,  2163.05

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Candy et al 11435495 - (D) BEST 103 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY BOYER, RANDY

“It is . . . well understood in patent usage that ‘consisting of’ is closed-ended and conveys limitation and exclusion.” CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“‘consisting of’ is a term of patent convention meaning that the claimed invention contains only what is expressly set forth in the claim . . . [however] it does not limit aspects unrelated to the invention”); In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520 (CCPA 1931) (the use of the claim term “consists” is limited to the claim’s enumerated alloy metals without other elements, unlike the term “comprising” which permits the inclusion of other metals than those “claimed”).

Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 70 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  2111.03

Gray, In re, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931) 2111.03

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Gardner 12230132 - (D) JENKS 103 103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO LEE, BRANDY SCOTT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Dally et al 10597241 - (D) MILLS 103/double patenting ELI LILLY & COMPANY COLEMAN, BRENDA LIBBY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Revankar 11688964 - (D) PRAISS 103 DEERE & COMPANY EMPIE, NATHAN H

1766 Ex Parte Witten et al 11909563 - (D) McKELVEY 102 Dewitt Ross & Stevens SC BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Giang et al 11443862 - (D) HOMERE 112(1)/112(2)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Aggarwal et al 11016210 - (D) SMITH 103 Robert H. Frantz SISON, JUNE Y
 
REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2711 Ex parte TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSING, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90010726 90009400 90009456 RE35952 (D) SIU 102 102 NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original FLYNN, NATHAN J
REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Kovatchev et al 10524094 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/102 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP CLOW, LORI A

cybersource, lantech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Steinmann et al 11115025 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

2193 Ex Parte Gustavson et al 11035933 - (D) MacDONALD 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MALZAHN, DAVID H

“Regardless of what statutory category (‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Giefer et al 10595502 - (D) KILE 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC JOHNSON, PHILLIP A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Horton 11937918 - (D) KAUFFMAN 112(1)/103 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. PRONE, JASON D

3743 Ex Parte Tritz 11180866 - (D) SPAHN 103 Lesavich High-Tech Law Group, P.C. LU, JIPING

see also Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors).

Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio, Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2145

3767 Ex Parte Obrigkeit 12108579 - (D) GRIMES 103 TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION SCHELL, LAURA C

3773 Ex Parte Collier et al 11169869 - (D) JENKS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON LAUER, CHRISTINA C

3778 Ex Parte Truschel et al 11327631 - (D) WALSH 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Leifermann et al 11407760 - (D) GREENHUT 102 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) CUOMO, PETER M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Mitrani et al 11037123 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MORALES, JON ERIC C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Groppe et al 11915068 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

1763 Ex Parte Khabashesku et al 12346729 - (D) NAGUMO 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC FINK, BRIEANN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Jaakkola 11377454 - (D) McKONE 103 Nokia Corporation Squire Sanders (US) LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Mennie et al 11920649 - (D) GROSSMAN 112(1) 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. SAVANI, AVINASH A

3767 Ex Parte OBRIEN et al 12004657 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Ichihara 11004814 - (R) GONSALVES 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP GONZALEZ, AMANCIO

ariad, hyatt

US 6,592,593 B1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Egli 11311748 - (D) KATZ 102/103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS LLC IP, SIKYIN
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Parees et al 11858931 - (D) COURTENAY 103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. LU, CHARLES EDWARD

2168 Ex Parte van Beek et al 10867981 - (D) HUME 103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP LY,CHEYNE D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Harrington 11774660 - (D) DANG 102 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC BARQADLE, YASIN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Fletcher et al 11581094 - (D) PLENZLER 103 HONEYWELL/IFL KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11544477 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) 102/103 Covidien LP LAUER, CHRISTINA C

See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Linder et al 10103123 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Siemens Corporation ALHIJA, SAIF A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Nakatsuyama 10725149 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC ZHONG,JUN FEI

2437 Ex Parte Himmel et al 11764829 - (D) CURCURI 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC ABYANEH, ALI S

2478 Ex Parte Eytchison et al 10763866 - (D) QUINN 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP ALI, FARHAD

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Chung et al 10844544 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC LIANG, REGINA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Yaw et al 11941627 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Fox Rothschild LLP NEGRON, ISMAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Stewart et al 11211978 - (D) BAHR 103 CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS STERLING, AMY JO

3634 Ex Parte Ulatowski 11316074 - (D) HORNER 112(2)/103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP - Denver PUROL, DAVID M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte DeVries et al 11979142 - (D) FRANKLIN 103/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting McDermott Will & Emery LLP DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived. In the event of such a waiver, the PTO may affirm the rejection of the group of claims that the examiner rejected on that ground without considering the merits of those rejections.”). See also MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant‟s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3663 GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester and Appellant v. PIONEER CORPORATION Patent Owner 95001335 6941222 10/132,570 WEINBERG 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CABRERA, ZOILA E original TO, TUAN C