unigene, GPAC, ruff

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Lorens et al 10696909 - (D) PRATS 103 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP REDDIG, PETER J

Thus, even post-KSR, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Instead, “[i]n determining whether obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03, 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Eickmeyer et al 11812443 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LEONG, NATHAN T

1716 Ex Parte Mahoney et al 11066520 - (D) PAK 112(2)/103 JOSHUA D. ISENBERG DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1734 Ex Parte Kim et al 12192024 - (D) HASTINGS 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant's disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596-96 (CCPA 1958); In re Lam, 35 Fed. Appx. 889, 894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) 2144.06

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Maitland et al 11588384 - (D) DANG 102/103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Kjellstrom et al 11045571 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Straccia et al 11609501 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1763 Ex Parte Nodelman et al 12002435 - (D) GARRIS 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1791 Ex Parte Jolly et al 11486423 - (D) SCHAFER 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP BADR, HAMID R

1792 Ex Parte Nietling et al 11255330 - (D) KRATZ 103 WARNER, NORCROSS & JUDD IN RE: ALTICOR INC. CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Blair 11783909 - (D) KUMAR 103 Lawrence Harbin MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2168 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11263224 - (D) NEW 103 Baker Botts LLP MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Muth 10517246 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 112(2) 37 CR 41.50(b) 102/103 NXP B.V. NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Park et al 11454505 - (D) DIXON 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE ARENDT, PAISLEY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Tower et al 11432838 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. HUGHES, SAMUEL T

3731 Ex Parte Tower et al 10127969 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 Medtronic CardioVascular SEVERSON, RYAN J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 LTS SCALE COMPANY, LLC Requester and Appellant v. ACME SCALE COMPANY INC. Patent Owner 95001401 7,757,946 11/108,271 WEINBERG 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH THIRD  PARTY R EQUESTER:  ECKERT  EAMANS  CHERIN  &  MELLOTT TON, MY TRANG original LE, THIEN MINH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1753 Guardian Industries Corp. Requester and Appellant v. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. and AGC Plat Glass Patent Owner and Respondent 90009782 6,193,856 09/011,749 LEBOVITZ 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP Third Party Requester: Nixon & Vanderhye P.C. original OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DIAMOND, ALAN D original VERSTEEG, STEVEN H

christianson, gunn, goldfarb

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Dellow 11236306 - (D) DESHPANDE 112(1)/103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SALEHI, HELAI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11626331 - (D) HILL 102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3652 Ex Parte Hwang et al 10956389 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland IP) LOWE, MICHAEL S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Lewis et al 11236315 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

3777 Ex Parte Tian et al 10881924 - (D) ADAMS 102 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY CHAO, ELMER M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Hane 10667329 - (D) ZECHER 103 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI

2492 Ex Parte Rustad et al 11206881 - (D) HOMERE 103/112(1) Rockwell Automation, Inc. SHEPPERD, ERIC W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Schultz et al 11225680 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 IBM CORPORATION SUTEERAWONGSA, JARURAT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Odom 11194766 - (D) FETTING 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BROWN, ALVIN L

3692 Ex Parte Bullard et al 11017504 - (D) FETTING 103 Klemchuk Kubasta LLP MONFELDT, SARAH M

3694 Ex Parte Morris 11161899 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC TRAN, HAI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Worrick et al 11787827 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MICHALSKI, SEAN M  

REEXAMINATION  

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 ZUMBOX, INC. Requester and Appellant v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001302 6,690,773 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. CRAVER, CHARLES R original WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex parte ETAGZ, INC. 90011244 6298332 09/306,077 SIU 102/103 PATE PIERCE & BAIRD LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original TESFAMARIAM, MUSSIE  

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex parte WATCHGUARD ISLE, LLC 90011706 6518878 09/538,323 CURCURI 102/103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP BASEHOAR, ADAM L original POPE, DARYL C  

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 CYBERLINK CORP. Requester and Appellant v. GETAC TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95000254 6765788 10/352,676 SIU 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP original NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION BANANKHAH, MAJID A original DUONG, HUNG V  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

VACATED and REMANDED
1103 FORRESTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., AND KEITH E. FORRESTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHEELABRATOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1686 4,737,356 06/935,899 5,430,233 07/673,825 5,245,114 07/702,787 DYK subject-matter jurisdiction Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP; Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A. original BANNER, BIRCH, MCKIE & BECKETT; BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. STRAUB, GARY P; VANOY, TIMOTHY C; VANOY, TIMOTHY C  

In Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., the Supreme Court held that a claim may “aris[e] under” the patent laws even where patent law did not create the cause of action, provided that the “well-pleaded complaint establishes . . . that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law.” 486 U.S. 800, 808–09 (1988). Thus, even a cause of action created by state law may “aris[e] under” federal patent law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 if it involves a patent law issue that is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013).

In its recent decision in Gunn v. Minton, the Supreme Court made clear that state law legal malpractice claims will “rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law,” even if they require resolution of a substantive question of federal patent law. 568 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1065, 1067. The Court reasoned that while such claims may “necessarily raise disputed questions of patent law,” those questions are “not substantial in the relevant sense.” Id. at 1065–66. The Court emphasized that “[b]ecause of the backward-looking nature of a legal malpractice claim, the question is posed in a merely hypothetical sense” and that “[n]o matter how the state courts resolve that hypothetical ‘case within a case,’ it will not change the real-world result of the prior federal patent litigation.” Id. at 1066–67. Because the malpractice claim portended no forwardlooking consequences and created no real possibility of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts, and in view of the “‘especially great’” state interest in regulating lawyers, the Court concluded that the patent law issues were not sufficiently “substantial” to create federal jurisdiction. See id. at 1066–68 (quoting Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975)).

glaug

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Lombard et al 10546384 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102/103 HONEYWELL/GRIECCI YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD

3767 Ex Parte Zapata 11695173 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) HALL, DEANNA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Hsu et al 11540274 - (D) BENOIT 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MAI, KEVIN S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Nessner et al 12435021 - (D) SCANLON 102/103 102/103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP MANSEN, MICHAEL R

3655 Ex Parte Kovach et al 11761041 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP LEWIS, TISHA D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Lipsky et al 10704211 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General KEATON, SHERROD L

2193 Ex Parte Conway et al 11141359 - (D) KOHUT 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP WANG, JUE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Wolters 11530477 - (D) WINSOR 103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP CHANG, JULIAN

see also In re Glaug, 283 F.3d 1335, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he general term must be understood in the context in which the inventor presents it.... [T]he inventor's lexicography must prevail."))

2456 Ex Parte Hsu et al 10874665 - (D) SHIANG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BATES, KEVIN T

2484 Ex Parte Helie et al 11107435 - (D) McKONE 101/103 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk CHOWDHURY, NIGAR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Kenyon 10940259 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Qwest Communications International Inc. DOAN, KIET M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12006255 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/101/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

jella, dsl, newkirk

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte BENSON et al 11383002 - (D) BAHR 103 MATTHEW R. JENKINS, ESQ. RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3655 Ex Parte Kimes et al 12575529 - (D) ASTORINO 103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC HOLMES, JUSTIN

3665 Ex Parte Logan et al 11851219 - (D) BROWNE 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Lloyd 11657344 - (D) PLENZLER 103 Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP HICKS, VICTORIA J

“Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art-recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution.” Ex Parte Jellá, 90 USPQ2d 1009, 1019 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). The Examiner does not indicate that Appellant has failed to present such evidence. Instead, the Examiner appears to require proof of failure of others to establish long-felt need. While long-felt need and failure of others are closely related, we are unaware of any authority for the Examiner’s proposition that failure of others is required to establish longfelt need. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has improperly required proof of failure of others to establish long-felt need.

3781 Ex Parte Bellerose et al 11103875 - (D) CALVE 103 TAYLOR IP, P.C. MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Keller et al 11918600 - (D) BAHR 102/103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ROHRHOFF, DANIEL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2669 Ex Parte Ali 11211402 - (D) BENOIT 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global  PATEL, JAYESH A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Tadayon et al 11711735 - (D) FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP SHERR, CRISTINA O

3685 Ex Parte Samayamantry et al 10951355 - (D) FETTING 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11189883 - (D) BROWNE 103 Whirlpool Patens Company- MD 0750 PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

3744 Ex Parte Kang et al 11017431 - (D) HORNER 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. PETTITT, JOHN F

“[P]roof of actual reduction to practice requires a showing that ‘the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.’” DSL Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1991), quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “On the other hand, tests performed outside the intended environment can be sufficient to show reduction to practice if the testing conditions are sufficiently similar to those of the intended environment.” Id. at 1125.

DSL Dynamic Sciences, Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1122, 18 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2138.05

Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) 715.07

REHEARING
 
DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Watkins et al 10601466 - (R) PETRAVICK 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. FISHER, PAUL R  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 UOP LLC Requester and Respondent v. EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001387 6870072 FITZPATRICK 314(a)/112(2)/102/103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY DIAMOND, ALAN D original  GRIFFIN,  WALTER  DEAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
3101 POWERSCREEN INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION, LIMITED (now known as Terex GB Limited), POWERSCREEN NEW YORK, INC. AND EMERALD EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND TEREX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. 2011-1572, 2012-1168, -1169 5,577,618 08/301,578 DYK 103 Cozen O’Connor; Merchant & Gould, PC; Bryan Cave, LLP original JACOBSON, PRICE, HOLMAN & STERN KELLY, TAMARA

railroad dynamics, wright3, brandstadter, kuderna, shuman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Ljunggren et al 11911726 - (D) GRIMES 103 Pepper/AstraZeneca FINN, MEGHAN R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Bangert 11603034 - (D) TIMM 112(1) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. GAKH, YELENA G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2694 Ex Parte LO et al 10250123 - (D) WINSOR 102 JIANQ CHYUN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Helmolt et al 10308217 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN ADE, OGER GARCIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte SPINK 12408283 - (D) MARTIN 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC TAWFIK, SAMEH

3767 Ex Parte Keeley et al 12137923 - (D) PRATS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11072007 - (D) FREDMAN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Tidwell 11458083 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE

Neither the Bartley Declaration nor Tidwell Declaration provide evidence of the efforts and resources expended during the time corresponding to the length of need in attempts to solve the problem, or that others have specifically tried and failed to solve the problem. See Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. Stuki Co., 579 F. Supp. 353, 363 (E.D. Pa. 1983), aff’d 727 F.2d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied 105 U.S. 220 (1984).
...
Declarations fail in their purpose when they merely make unsupported conclusory statements. See in re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 1405 (CCPA 1973).

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2107.01, 2161.01, 2164.03, 2164.01(a), 2164.04, 2164.05(a), 2164.06(b), 2164.08

Brandstadter, In re, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973) 716.01(c), 716.09, 2164.05, 2164.06(c)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Henninger et al 10513531 - (D) POWELL 103 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C BATES, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Exner 11314202 - (D) MILLS 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SALMON, KATHERINE D

Obviousness is determined in view of the sum of all of the relevant teachings in the art, not isolated teachings in the art. See In re Kuderna, 426 F.2d 385, 389 (CCPA 1970); see also In re Shuman, 361 F.2d 1008, 1012 (CCPA 1966).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Niesten et al 12170820 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Morphet 11999133 - (D) JEFFERY 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. HAJNIK, DANIEL F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Shin et al 12140067 - (D) ANDERSON 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CONSILVIO, MARK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Kramer et al 11793102 - (D) CAPP 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ATKISSON, JIANYING CUI

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Krishnaprasad et al 11100083 - (D) BENOIT HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE CHEMPAKASERIL, ANN J  

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. CIMA LABORATORIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000160 6221392 09/464,882 LEBOVITZ 103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP original WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original SPEAR, JAMES M

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 MOTIVA, LLC, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND NINTENDO CO., LTD., AND NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Intervenors. 2012-1252 7,292,151 11/187,373 7,492,268 11/935,578 PROST no Section 337 violation STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP PHAM, TOAN NGOC

teva, theodore roosevelt, aero prods., bancorp

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Tanaka et al 10979542 - (D) SCHEINER 103 FAY SHARPE LLP PAGE, BRENT T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Benesch et al 11091737 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Air Liquide Linda K. Russell ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Rising 11454698 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 Siemens Corporation NGUYEN, ANDREW H

3775 Ex Parte Holloway et al 11396554 - (D) OSINSKI 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Venema et al 11170166 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ULM, JOHN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Head 11325646 - (D) HOELTER 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. BAYOU, AMENE SETEGNE

3767 Ex Parte MacLean et al 11785504 - (D) HASTINGS 103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO CARPENTER, WILLIAM R  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1941 1636 SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENENTECH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND BIOGEN IDEC INC., Defendant. 2012-1454 5,849,522 08/467,143 6,218,140 08/338,213 REYNA concurring DYK denial of anti-suit injunction FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT AND DUNNER LEITH, NANCY J; GUZO, DAVID

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
2765 3624 3624 3693 CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, AND CLS SERVICES LTD., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Defendant-Appellant. 2011-1301 5,970,479 08/070,136 6,912,510 09/567,507 7,149,720 10/331,331 7,725,375 11/166,387 PER CURIAM 101 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC MACDONALD, ALLEN R; SNAPP, SANDRA S; HAVAN, THU THAO; WONG, ERIC TAK WAI

We review the grant or denial of summary judgment applying the law of the relevant regional circuit. Teva Pharm. Indus. v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The D.C. Circuit considers a district court’s grant of summary judgment without deference. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2011). We apply our own law, however, with respect to issues of substantive patent law. Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent eligibility under § 101 presents an issue of law that we review de novo. Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

aoyama, golight, donaldson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Flinchem 11613817 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP AFOLABI, MARK O

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Marsili 11090811 - (D) MORGAN 103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC MALEK, LEILA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Lassl et al 11530293 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/103 Just Intellectuals, PLLC WESTBROOK, SUNSURRAYE

3646 Ex Parte McCarty et al 11735612 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Id. at 1297 (quoting Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334). As explained in In re Donaldson, “the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Rather, the PTO must look to the Specification and construe the “means” language recited in the claim as limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification and equivalents thereof. Id.

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Wright et al 11526953 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Pitroda 11931872 - (D) KIM 101/102/103 102./103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz NGUYEN, NGA B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Kay et al 10200002 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP WHITEMAN, BRIAN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte De Villiers et al 11982431 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

3753 Ex Parte Neff et al 11045448 - (D) SPAHN 103 Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, P.C. SCHNEIDER, CRAIG M

3767 Ex Parte Weilbacher 11517043 - (D) ADAMS 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3777 Ex Parte Stamatas et al 10986941 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CHENG, JACQUELINE

IPXL, katz interactive, rembrandt, ekchian

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Arends et al 11740355 - (D) ZECHER 103 IBM CORPORATION ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Moore et al 11517020 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 103 VERIZON GIDADO, RASHEED

2485 Ex Parte Fukuhara et al 10835582 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP LEE, Y YOUNG

2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10337611 - (D) WHITE 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Sukhman et al 11021904 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General STAFFORD, PATRICK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Ex Parte Vu et al 10484498 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

3686 Ex Parte Koster 10702253 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP PHONGSVIRAJATI, POONSIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Harris et al 11415881 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Lewis and Roca LLP - Sony D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY

3767 Ex Parte Moberg et al 11224416 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. HALL, DEANNA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kito et al 12179803 - (D) McKONE 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BRYANT, MICHAEL C

A claim that recites a combination of two separate statutory classes of invention (under 35 U.S.C. § 101) “‘is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the ‘metes and bounds’ of protection involved’ and is ‘ambiguous and properly rejected’ under section 112, paragraph 2.’” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1550-51 (BPAI 1990)).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)
...
We conclude that claim 17, although couched in terms of a conditional statement, is directed to the actions performed by the system, rather than the capabilities of the system. Thus, claim 17 recites both a statutory machine and a statutory process. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Like the language used in the claim at issue in IPXL (‘wherein . . . the user uses’), the language used in Katz’s claims (‘wherein . . . callers digitally enter data’ and ‘wherein . . . callers provide . . . data’) is directed to user actions, not system capabilities.”); Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (data transmitting device held indefinite for reciting transmitting method step). Accordingly, claim 17 is indefinite. See IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1384.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Semerdzhiev et al 10856247 - (D) STEPHENS 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ GOFMAN, ALEX N

2176 Ex Parte Mewherter et al 10685192 - (D) HOMERE 101/112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP DEBROW, JAMES J

2179 Ex Parte Michelitsch et al 10726298 - (D) BENOIT 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LO, WEILUN

2194 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11268326 - (D) POTHIER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JORDAN, KIMBERLY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Shah 10670550 - (D) NEW 103 MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) JOO, JOSHUA

2445 Ex Parte Hind et al 10643601 - (D) PARVIS 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JOO, JOSHUA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Valley et al 11854449 - (D) BRANCH 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. LI, SHI K

2643 Ex Parte Nandagopal 11345695 - (D) CURCURI 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2659 Ex Parte Beiermeister et al 11948480 - (D) HOMERE 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. SHAH, PARAS D

2678 Ex Parte Vandenbrande et al 11421413 - (D) KRIVAK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. HOANG, PHI

2689 Ex Parte Huang 11607842 - (D) KRIVAK 112(2)/103 Paul M. Denk MORTELL, JOHN F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte JENNINGS et al 11831830 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX WILKES, ZACHARY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Nagda et al 10000121 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER CASLER, TRACI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Weil et al 10994505 - (D) TARTAL 103 Dority & Manning P.A. PINHEIRO, JASON PAUL  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Achtermann et al 11456225 - (R) HOMERE 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 2761 USHIP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Third Party Defendant-Appellee. 2012-5077 5,831,220 08/845,012 6,105,014 09/162,874 MOORE summary judgment of noninfringement Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Desmarais, LLP original DATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS ROSENMAN GIBSON, RANDY W; COSIMANO, EDWARD R

Thus, statements giving rise to a disclaimer may be made in response to a rejection over the prior art, but they may also take place in other contexts. For example, an applicant’s remarks submitted with an Information Disclosure Statement can be the basis for limiting claim scope. See Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We hold that a patent applicant’s response to a restriction requirement may be used to interpret patent claim terms or as a source of disclaimer.

hewlett-packard, aslanian

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Pillar et al 10792937 - (D) GRIMES 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. SRIVASTAVA, KAILASH C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Wenn et al 11695418 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC COBY, FRANTZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Laicher et al 10894652 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Kim et al 11400023 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (The Webb Firm) SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3738 Ex Parte McKinsey et al 12195762 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3762 Ex Parte Chen et al 10922133 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Landrum Intellectual Property STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

3766 Ex Parte van Oort et al 11669345 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STICE, PAULA J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Locker et al 11403752 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2)/103 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES ABDELSALAM, FATHI K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lawande et al 10936469 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle) PHAM, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Brady et al 11441998 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1)/103 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Sanpitak 11691568 - (D) JEFFERY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION LEE, SHUN K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Rucker 10704400 - (D) LORIN 103 Alexander J. Burke COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

But “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

3655 Ex Parte LIGHT et al 11277533 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 BORGWARNER INC. KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

The drawings in a utility patent can be used for all they disclose, even if the features shown are unintended or unexplained in the specification. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CAFC 1979).

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

3695 Ex Parte Perez et al 11175911 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. POLLOCK, GREGORY A  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex parte SUBSEA SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90010812 6,402,201 09/517,383 HOELTER 112(1)/103 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP LEWIS, AARON J original LUU, TUYET PHUONG PHAM

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2862 BARON SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDIA WEATHER INNOVATIONS LLC, Defendant-Appellee 2012-1285, -1443 6,490,525 09/928,391 PROST dissenting REYNA summary judgment non-infringement Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, PC Jones & Keller, P.C. MCELHENY JR, DONALD E

ranbaxy

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2494 Ex Parte Carter et al 11208275 - (D) WINSOR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GARLICK & MARKISON GERGISO, TECHANE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Reid 11447625 - (D) FLOYD 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A JOHNSON, VICKY A

3664 Ex Parte Hanson 11465710 - (D) BROWNE 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

3692 Ex Parte Schmidt 11348637 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. MONFELDT, SARAH M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Austin et al 10380663 - (D) COURTENAY 112(2)/102/103 101 Haugen Law Firm LU,CHARLES EDWARD

Assuming arguendo that claim 35 is a proper multiple dependent claim, we agree with Appellants that it includes the subject matter of the claims from which it depends. (See App. Br. 17). 2

See also 35 U.S.C. § 112(e):

(e) REFERENCE IN MULTIPLE DEPENDENT FORM.—A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered. 3

2 A counter argument can be made that multiple dependent claim 35 is not a proper dependent claim because it arguably does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1, but instead broadens the subject matter of claim 1 to extend the scope of coverage to a computer program embodiment not within the scope of apparatus claim 1. See Pfizer Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (when a claim relying on another claim “fails to ‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [another] claim to which it refers because it is completely outside the scope of [the another claim,]” such claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.).

3 Amended Sept. 16, 2011, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 4(c), 125 Stat. 284 (effective Sept. 16, 2012).
 
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Yang 10939302 - (D) PRATS DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC 103 PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte GALLOWAY 11939700 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. CHEN, VIVIAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Berkel van 10516847 - (D) COURTENAY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DINH, DUC Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Pedrazzoli Pazos 10325771 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS ABDELSALAM, FATHI K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Iannizzaro et al 11760981 - (D) CAPP 102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3765 Ex Parte Cho 11403339 - (D) CALVE 103 FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS HADEN, SALLY CLINE

3783 Ex Parte Christain et al 11239561 - (D) FLOYD 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MCMAHON, MARGUERITE J  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY Requester and Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. TDY INDUSTRIES Patent Owner and Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001417 7244519 10/922,750 LEBOVITZ 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES DIAMOND, ALAN D original TURNER, ARCHENE A