envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182

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

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.

deere, innova, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Shim et al 11336110 - (D) WARREN 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP TRAN, TONY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Park et al 11508300 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC LUONG, PETER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 12516092 - (D) KOKOSKI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP PATEL, DEVANG R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LUBBERS et al 11771411 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 McCarthy Law Group PARIKH, KALPIT

2194 Ex Parte Gikas et al 11311759 - (D) STRAUSS 112(1) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION KRAFT, SHIH-WEI

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Zhu et al 11113852 - (D) JENKS 103 ADDMG - BlackBerry BLAIR, KILE O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12584791 - (D) BEST 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE ALLEN, STEPHONEB

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. SULZER MIXPAC AG Patent Owner, Respondent 95001656 7815384 11/563,791 SONG 103 K&L Gates LLP Third Party Requester: CANTOR COLBURN LLP LEWIS, AARON J original WALCZAK, DAVID J

DENIED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC., Requester, Appellant v. RICHARD PARKS CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner, Respondent 95001371 7,144,170 11/003,449 KERINS 103 K&L Gates LLP LEWIS, AARON J original WALCZAK, DAVID J

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED AND REMANDED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASABA, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2013-1302 7,470,101 11/975,205 7,618,213 11/631,975 CLEVENGER concurring RADER SJ non-infringement claim construction Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC; Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, P.C. FOX, CHARLES A; LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

First, in claim construction, one must not import limitations from the specification that are not part of the claim. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, claims generally are not limited to any particular embodiment disclosed in the specification, even where only a single embodiment is disclosed. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Second, and relevant to this case, a system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 72 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  2173.05(g)
DONNER 10: 675-83
HARMON 6: 118, 121, 158, 169, 327; 10: 348

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114
DONNER 14: 89, 175, 217
HARMON 1: 172; 4: 205; 7: 241, 278

paragon HARMON 6: 71, 169c, 188, 450

animal, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hansen 12664070 - (D) GARRIS 103 FLSMIDTH MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Osterloh et al 11115068 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC HTUN, SAN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 INPHI CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001381 7,532,537 11/335,875 JEFFERY 112(1)/102/103 The Law Office of Jamie Zheng, Ph.D Esq. PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER

Here, it is undisputed that the negative limitation, “DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals,” was added by amendment Appeal 2013-009066 during reexamination. It is likewise undisputed that this particular phrase is not expressly stated in the ’537 patent’s original disclosure.

Nevertheless, it is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. 
Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).

animal DONNER 6: 202; 8: 1501; 10: 418; 14: 574

swanson

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Evans et al 10965201 - (D) FISHMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Brass et al 10579321 - (D) MORGAN 103 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA HAMMONDS, MARCUSC

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner 90012015 6942248 10/114,533 SONG 102(e)/SNQP BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ; Third Party Requester: Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione ENGLISH, PETER C original TO, TOAN C

In applying this statutory language, the Federal Circuit stated that "to decide whether a reference that was previously considered by the PTO creates a substantial new question of patentability, the PTO should evaluate the context in which the reference was previously considered and the scope of the prior consideration and determine whether the reference is now being considered for a substantially different purpose." In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1380 (2008) (concluding that prior art originally used as a secondary reference in an obviousness rejection was sufficient to establish SNQP when considered as an anticipatory reference) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 107-120, at 3 ("The appropriate test to determine whether a 'substantial new question of patentability' exists should not merely look at the number of references or whether they were previously considered or cited but their combination in the appropriate context of a new light as it bears on the question of the validity of the patent.")). "[A]n 'argument already decided by the Office, whether during the original examination or an earlier reexamination' cannot raise a new question of patentability . . . . As [the Federal Circuit] explained in In re Recreative Technologies Corp., the substantial new question requirement 'guard[s] against simply repeating the prior examination on the same issues and arguments' and bars 'a second examination, on the identical ground that had previously been raised and overcome.'" Id. (Citations omitted, emphasis added).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 1676 NOVARTIS AG AND NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, AND DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2013-1160, -1179 7,807,155 11/658,344 7,968,518 10/570,097 7,973,031 10/493,786 TARANTO how much time to add, under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) McCarter & English, LLP; Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice HAMUD, FOZIA M; GUDIBANDE, SATYANARAYAN R; COLEMAN, BRENDA LIBBY

VACATED AND REMANDED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 1628 EXELIXIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1175 8,067,436 11/753,514 2013-1198 7,989,622 11/988,862 PER CURIAM how much time to add, under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, LLP; Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; original HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP  BERNHARDT, EMILY A; HEYER, DENNIS

sullivan, glaug

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Champ et al 12260399 - (D) KRATZ 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ZEMEL, IRINA SOPHIA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte BALACHANDRAN et al 11674842 - (D) BROWNE 103 Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP BARON, JAMES T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11579222 - (D) HUME 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC MEROUAN, ABDERRAHIM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Geis et al 11731338 - (D) TORCZON 103 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP (MIT) RADKOWSKI, PETER

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Knapp 11356673 - (D) FETTING 103 Siemens Corporation RAJ, RAJIV J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Im et al 11245231 - (D) FRAHM 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. STERNBANE, LAURENCE J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11617902 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP SHAFER, RICKY D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Harkins et al 11149828 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 101/112(1)/102 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT) GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

3725 Ex Parte Ingvarsson 12221890 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting Mark P. Stone YUSUF, MOHAMMAD I

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
2915 PACIFIC COAST MARINE WINDSHIELDS LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MALIBU BOATS, LLC, AND TRESSMARK, INC., doing business as Liquid Sports Marine, Defendants-Appellees, AND MARINE HARDWARE, INC., MH WINDOWS, LLC, AND JOHN F. PUGH, Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1199 D555,070 29/258,753 DYK SJ non-infringement due to prosecution history estoppel Rohde & Van Kampen, PLLC; O’Melveny & Myers LLP CHIN, CYNTHIA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 IN RE RAYMOND GIANNELLI 2013-1167 10/378,261 5,997,447 08/941,455 LOURIE 103 Novak, Druce, Connolly, Bove & Quigg, LLP; Associate Solicitor USPTO DONNELLY, JEROME W; MULCAHY, JOHN M

The PTO bears the initial burden of showing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When a prima facie case of obviousness is made, the burden then shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence and/or argument supporting patentability. In re Glaug, 283 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The PTO did not carry its burden in this case.

sullivan DONNER 2: 25-45; 8: 948-63, 1195-1215, 1423-45
HARMON 4: 426, 443

glaug DONNER 8: 145-50, 1698-1705
HARMON 4: 36, 209, 369; 6: 146

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION AND WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND SLING MEDIA, INC. Defendant-Appellee, AND VIZIO, INC., Defendant. 2013-1165 7,080,362 09/938,886 7,225,436 09/687,777 DYK concurring LOURIE SJ non-infringement Pepper Hamilton LLP; Wiley Rein, LLP original HAHN AND MOODLEY LLP DAS, CHAMELI; NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC (formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.), Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND APPLE INC., Intervenor. 2012-1666 6,272,333 09/096,664 REYNA non infringement; domestic industry req. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Office of the General Counsel ITC; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP CHOW, CHARLES CHIANG

2785 IN RE ENHANCED SECURITY RESEARCH, LLC 2013-1114 90/010,849 6,119,236 09/210,057 DYK Dissenting O’MALLEY 103; publically available prior art Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.; Associate Solicitor USPTO ELISCA, PIERRE E

3306 ALLEGRA HEMPHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1503 4,557,720 06/619,684 PER CURIAM Rule 11 sanctions ALLEGRA HEMPHILL; Covington & Burling, LLP NOT, DEFINED FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)

MICKY A. GUTIER, Appellant, v. HUGO BOSS TRADE MARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG, Appellee. 2013-1481 2,909,091 2,921,574 DYK cancelling the registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 MICKY A. GUTIER; DLA Piper, LLP

VACATED AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 PROVERIS SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (formerly known as Image Therm Engineering, Inc.), Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. INNOVASYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1166, -1190 6,785,400 09/640,246 PROST claim interpretation Proveris Scientific Corporation; Fox Rothschild, LLP original GREENBERG TRAURIG (NY) TABATABAI, ABOLFAZL

function media, typhoon touch, finisar, agilent

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Yuengling et al 11313898 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. TIV,BACKHEAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Afram et al 11862968 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 VERIZON MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Masters 10385587 - (D) NEW 112(2)/102 Siemens Corporation SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification discloses sufficient structure to fulfill the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph). “It is axiomatic that claims must ‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.’” Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph)). The sixth paragraph of section 112 allows “a claim [to] state the function of the element or step, and the ‘means’ covers the ‘structure, material, or acts' set forth in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The trade-off for allowing such claiming is that “the specification must contain sufficient descriptive text by which a person of skill in the field of the invention would ‘know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation.’” Id. at 1383–84 (quoting Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

...
The use of a computer is inherent in the disclosure, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that it is necessary to employ a computer to run the disclosed computer program—software is useless without hardware. See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Jrad et al 11838349 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Foad et al 11029646 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Applied Materials, Inc. PURINTON, BROOKE J

2883 Ex Parte Nash 12067288 - (D) PAK 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SOUTHCO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001911 6468012 09/911,940 SONG 103 102 PAUL & PAUL Third Party Requester:  KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original WILSON, NEILL R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 EVERBRIDGE INC., FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., AND TWITTER INC. Third Party Requesters, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents v. COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant 95001425 7409428 10/829,181 McKONE 102/103 KING & SPALDING, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: Haynes and Boone, LLP CRAVER, CHARLES R original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 12599896 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Ha et al 11307382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP ULLAH, ELIAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12070387 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Potekhin et al 10144561 - (D) KOHUT 112(1)/103 101 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. TANG, KAREN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Xu et al 11707812 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12217899 - (D) GARRIS 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11213577 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MACCORD MASON PLLC IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Finally, while claim 1 does recite “transaction data that represents a single client expenditure with a merchant in exchange for a plurality of products,” the manner or degree of representation is unspecified, and there is no recital of a sale, only an expenditure in exchange for products. Thus, this limitation is aspirational instead of functional or structural, and is perceptible only in the mind of the beholder.

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir.1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983)

[T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.”. . . . see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non-precedential). Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 2010). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the limitation).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
DONNER 6: 179; 8: 395, 1924

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Shiping 11862389 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP NERANGIS, VICKEY M

1784 Ex Parte Zhai et al 10912576 - (D) KALAN 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Klein et al 11781374 - (D) HUME 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 11469680 - (D) STRAUSS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kraufvelin 11436772 - (D) BUI 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. TORRES, MARCOS L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Requester, Respondent v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001654 6,890,324 09/894,042 MARTIN 305/102/103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KIDWELL, MICHELE M

de blauwe

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Baskerville et al 11839318 - (D) STRAUSS 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP HOSSEINI, REZA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Ippisch 11380712 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BECCIA,CHRISTOPHERJ

See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight.)

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 716.01(c), 2145
DONNER 8: 1313, 1681, 1686

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte O'Hearn et al 11221138 - (D) SAADAT 102 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Lu 11561880 - (D) BUSCH 101/103 AOL Inc./Finnegan VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Blechman 10431845 - (D) FETTING 103 Eugene Lieberstein HEWITT II, CALVIN L

anhydrides

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Walker et al 11143878 - (D) FREDMAN 102 102 Siemens Corporation ZAHR, ASHRAF A

We not only find the Examiner’s interpretation consistent with the principles of “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification,” but agree with the Examiner that the preferred interpretation of a modifying phrase is that it modifies the immediately preceding phrase, rather than an earlier recited phrase. See Anhydrides & Chemicals, Inc. v. U.S., 130 F.3d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The rules of grammar apply in statutory construction: Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent, which consists of ‘the last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.’”)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2851 Ex Parte Padalia et al 11392215 - (D) GARRIS 102 LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILLIAN R. PETERSON DOAN, NGHIA M

2885 Ex Parte Lac et al 11574912 - (D) KALAN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TSIDULKO, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Angel et al 10207836 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP OYEBISI, OJO O

ksr

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Frazer 10475203 - (D) ADAMS 103 COOLEY LLP BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Tang et al 11371508 - (D) McKELVEY 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Varanasi 11171599 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. AHMED, ENAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Helmer et al 12104614 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Nicol et al 11480296 - (D) ARPIN 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, “[w]hen there is a design need . . . to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (emphasis added).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04
DONNER 8: 31-87, 109-12, 397, 404-13, 477, 478, 512, 514, 536, 544, 545, 714-17, 720, 837, 846, 875-77, 888, 906-13, 921, 982, 1144-46, 1157, 1175-82, 1190, 1234, 1345-49, 1356, 1402, 1403, 1465, 1610, 1720, 1727, 1729-34, 1739, 1748-50, 1761, 1779-86, 1794, 1905, 1907

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P. Requester and Appellant v. FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001567 7376388 11/498,415 JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Foster Pepper PLLC Third Party Requester: Foley & Lardner LLP NASSER, ROBERT L original GESESSE, TILAHUN