keller, datamize, musgrave, Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11173702 - (D) FRAHM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2182 Ex Parte Brenner et al 11751277 - (D) CHEN 103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hamalainen 10546641 - (D) MORGAN 103 FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) SU, SARAH

2443 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12342691 - (D) SHIANG 102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BELANI, KISHIN G

2492 Ex Parte Rasanen 11156479 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11096851 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Mohrmann, III 11465637 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP CHOUDHURY, ZAHID

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”).

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

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Reignoux et al 11629893 - (D) OWENS 103 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte PELTON 11860115 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich Manelli Selter PLLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Specifically, the scope of the claimed “prescribed presentation preference” is not defined and thus, appears to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Application of Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. 1352, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (1970) (noting ‘[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite’). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” (emphasis added)).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
...

“When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is “especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Pauly et al 11317464 - (D) FINK 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. SANDERS, STEPHEN

2457 Ex Parte Leermakers 10993391 - (D) SHAW 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SALL, EL HADJI MALICK

2463 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854417 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KHIRODHAR, MAHARISHI V

2491 Ex Parte SAWICKI et al 12143134 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Stevens Law Group BECHTEL, KEVIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Baardse et al 12052610 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 Siemens Corporation GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

2644 Ex Parte Naim et al 11274015 - (D) COURTENAY 103 SPRINT HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

Phillips, bristol-myers2, continental can, kansas jack, goodyear dental

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Gaither et al 11554672 - (D) SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Todd 11626730 - (D) WORTH 103 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP TRINH, MICHAEL MANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Kelly 10737087 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP LAVINDER, JACK W

Appellant disagrees and references Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for stating “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” App. Br. 21 (additional citations omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. “Accordingly, the Examiner's allegation that the meaning could change over time is irrelevant, as the meaning ‘at the time of invention’ determines plain meaning.” App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 3.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305873 - (D) SAADAT 103 William E. Curry PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Scrimsher et al 11497156 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PLECHA, THADDEUS J

2473 Ex Parte Meier et al 11600492 - (D) WINSOR 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. HUQ, OBAIDUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Rooyen 11010486 - (D) JEFFERY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHEN, JUNPENG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12182531 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BERHANU, SAMUEL

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8056975 et al 12/573,484 90009987 - (D) GREENHUT 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. Third Party Requester: Law Office of John W. Harbst ENGLISH, PETER C original NELSON JR, MILTON

“[U]nhelpful evidence [does not] diminish[] the strength of the more persuasive forms of evidence.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13-1306, 18 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014). The burden of showing commercial success attributable to the features of the claim does not impose a burden to demonstrate that no other conceivable factors contributed to that success. App. Br. 31-36; contra Ans. 8. “It is not necessary that [] the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed.Cir. 1991).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01

We are unaware of any requirement that the invention be the only successful product in its market niche or the most successful. App. Br. 38 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 602,679 (D. Del. 2013) aff’d at Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc ., supra (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014)(“ We agree with the factual findings on secondary considerations and find no clear error”). Evidence of growth in market share, like evidence of total market share, is relevant to the commercial success inquiry. See e.g., Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F. 2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A growing market share demonstrates that Appellant was “displac[ing] other devices which had previously been employed for analogous uses.” See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 US 486, 495-6 (1877).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent v. FRACTUS, S.A. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7528782 et al 11/780,932 95001455 - (D) MOORE 102(e)/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original PHAN, THO GIA

institut pasteur, verdegaal

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Rau 11226415 - (D) JENKS 103/obviousness-type double patenting HC Park & Associates, PLC AHMED, HASAN SYED

However, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence-based technical reasoning to support his position that the ordinary artisan armed with the knowledge of the optimal osmolality for a rehydration composition as provided by Greenleaf, could readily manipulate the composition disclosed by King to arrive at an effervescent composition with the claimed osmolality level. The mere “‘knowledge of the goal does not render its achievement obvious,’ and obviousness generally requires that a skilled artisan have reasonably expected success in achieving that goal.” Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Kimiya 11056441 - (D) BONILLA 102(e) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. VAUGHN, GREGORY J

“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 2 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . ..2131

2185 Ex Parte Hughes 12100013 - (D) MORGAN 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AYASH, MARWAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Atobe 10974599 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Korajda et al 12339268 - (D) KRATZ 102/103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Sundberg et al 11003639 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) BAKER, LORI LYNN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte CLARKE et al 11936816 - (D) JENKS 103 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TRAN, QUOC A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2496 Ex Parte van Bemmel et al 10970143 - (D) FISHMAN 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. POLTORAK, PIOTR

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Fahmy 10907423 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG NAHAR, QAMRUN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2742 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant Ex Parte 5815551 et al 08/473,320 90012036 - (D) CHEN 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER RALIS, STEPHEN J original BROWN, THOMAS

otsuka, takeda, altana

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Goldstein et al 11899758 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. C/O Gibbons P.C. RAO, DEEPAK R

The Federal Circuit provides a two-prong analysis to determine whether a new chemical compound is prima facie obvious over particular prior art. The fact finder first determines whether a chemist of ordinary skill would have selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead compounds, or starting points, for further development efforts. (Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Court defines a lead compound as “a compound in the prior art that would be most promising to modify in order to improve upon its ... activity and obtain a compound with better activity,” (Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007), or “a natural choice for further development efforts.” Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The second step involves determining “whether the prior art would have supplied one of ordinary skill in the art with a reason or motivation to modify a lead compound to make the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.” Otsuka, 678 F.3d at 1292 (citing Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1357).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Muras 12105774 - (D) WORMEESTER 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Umekage et al 10572421 - (D) ADAMS 103 EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Kim et al 11198596 - (D) KRATZ 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN CHENG, DIANA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weikard et al 11217725 - (D) GRIMES 103 obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 12144120 - (D) HUME 112(2)/102(e) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ELLIOTT IV, BENJAMIN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte Wallash et al 11701091 - (D) DANG 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP WATKO, JULIE ANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Helvenstein 12077186 - (D) GARRIS 103 SOFER & HAROUN LLP. TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex parte AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY LIMITED Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,544,120 et al 09/862,182 90012063 - (D) BAHR 112(1)/102/103 112(2) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD ENGLISH, PETER C original LAYNO, BENJAMIN

perricone

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte LEE et al 12145080 - (D) GARRIS 103 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Haverinen et al 10659774 - (D) CALVE 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office DAILEY, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2693 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10686323 - (D) PINKERTON 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP MA, CALVIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Dunas et al 10510685 - (D) STRAUSS 102(e) 102(e) Wolff & Samson (ALU) HO, HUY C

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Harrison 11644862 - (D) RUGGIERO 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BELL, KALISH K

2478 Ex Parte Rivers et al 12052203 - (D) CHUNG 103 Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC RENNER, BRANDON M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Crockett et al 11960559 - (D) HORVATH 101/103 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP SPAR, ILANA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Alheidt et al 10530817 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Becton Dickinson and Company SCHELL, LAURA C

“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Coulthard et al 11056587 - (D) ADAMS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Song et al 11962928 - (D) McKEOWN 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. TRAN, PAUL P

merck2, susi

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Hong et al 11511423 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Wochner et al 12674299 - (D) ROESEL 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DUNLAP, CAITLIN NOELLE DENNI

The fact that Wochner also discloses many other possible combinations of acids does not support nonobviousness. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (that reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious,” especially where “the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a) , 2123 , 2144.05 , 2144.08

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123 , 2144.08

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Harris 12552238 - (D) GARRIS 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris, Inc RAMADAN, RAMY O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Kilborn et al 11386038 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC SORIANO, BOBBY GILES

cortright intergraph, ormco, gould2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Futrell et al 12136202 - (D) HILL 101 Cooke Law Firm MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

3744 Ex Parte Swofford 12040154 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP COMINGS, DANIEL C

“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be
consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (Citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

3748 Ex Parte Frazier et al 11655268 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Foley & Lardner LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11926504 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC HUANG, MIRANDA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Keggenhoff et al 12851604 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Under the “law of the case” doctrine, a court will generally adhere to a decision in a prior appeal in the same case unless one of three exceptions exist: (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial contains new and different
material evidence; (2) there has been an intervening change of controlling legal authority; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 930 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

merck3

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte COCKS et al 11459944 - (D) DILLON 103 GRASSO PLLC SCOTT, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte MENDONCA et al 11558715 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP ABDI, AMARA

The Examiner's interpretation would likewise render the expressly recited claim term "probabilistic" superfluous.  Such an interpretation would be contrary to the canons of claim construction.  "A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so." Merck & Co. v. Teva Phams. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Circ. 2005). We therefore find the Examiner's claim construction of  "a probabilistic model" unreasonable broad.

Merck & Co., Inc., v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 73 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Yarovesky 12115967 - (D) OWENS 102/103 103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP SZEKELY, PETER A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Mythen 11885472 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 103 LOUIS WOO STUART, COLIN W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Lauffer et al 12078206 - (D) NAGUMO 103 HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP SAWYER, STEVEN T

2851 Ex Parte Hopkins et al 12349289 - (D) GARRIS 101/102/103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) LEE, ERIC D

KCJ, harari

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Matusch et al 10942297 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 ProPat, LLC PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Hsu 10515372 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP WEBB, GREGORY E

1784 Ex Parte Starikov et al 11891429 - (D) OWENS 103 Cooke Law Firm KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Rhee et al 11342003 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte RAGHUNATH et al 11622119 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 101 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ota et al 11718151 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. VAJDA, PETER L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Marquet et al 10846542 - (D) JEFFERY 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. POWERS, WILLIAM S

Turning to claim 1, the claim recites, in pertinent part, that the interface device comprises a smart card connector to which plural smart card execution devices are connected. We emphasize the indefinite article “a” here, for it is well settled that it means “‘one or more’” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To be sure, “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That exception is not the case here; nor have Appellants shown as
much on this record.

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: OBLON, SPIVAK McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 KOHLER CO. Requester and Appellant v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7230345 et al 11/033,579 95001558 - (D) WEINBERG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original PONOMARENKO, NICHOLAS

kerkhoven, cheese systems

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Bearinger et al 10781582 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ANDERSON, GREGORY A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 12761953 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) ARNOLD, ERNST V

“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Steigelmann et al 12516479 - (D) ROESEL 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) ENG, ELIZABETH

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan 11701040 - (D) ROESEL 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 12025479 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC PATEL, NIMESH G

Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

2114 Ex Parte Weiberle et al 11990251 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP IQBAL, NADEEM

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte CHOI et al 11777829 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2649 Ex Parte Sylvain 10824662 - (D) HORVATH 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) LU, ZHIYU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Cooke 11932729 - (D) HOELTER 103 Cooke Law Firm THOMPSON, KENNETH L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2601 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant Ex Parte 4930150 et al 07/260,104 90012136 - (D) CHEN 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD. RALIS, STEPHEN J

montgomery, MEHL halliburton, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Willison et al 10187666 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

“The keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitability. For anticipation by inherency, a later-claimed invention must have necessarily resulted from the practice of a prior art reference. Our precedent has been steadfast in this strict requirement of inevitability.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 11605167 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12024176 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HOEY, ALISSA L

Our reviewing court instructs us that an applicant “is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.” Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court recently instructed us that claims must at least “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the [claimed subject matter] with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kouhi et al 11999586 - (D) KRIVAK 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT HITT GAINES, PC HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2491 Ex Parte Bomma 11935758 - (D) CHUNG 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Pildner 11521707 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TYCO FIRE PROTECTION JAMAL, ALEXANDER

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 11948458 - (D) PAULRAJ 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TAN, ALVIN H

kahn

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Lundquist 12778015 - (D) CHERRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP OYEBISI, OJO O

See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Skala 11669922 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC YANCHUK, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201040 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Lyndem 12174284 - (D) NAPPI 112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BANSAL, GURTEJ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11590568 - (D) FETTING 102 AlbertDhand LLP HAQ, NAEEM U