packard, Phillips, hammack, cohn

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Imanaga et al 11937599 - (D) BEST 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP GATEWOOD, DANIEL S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Anerousis et al 12172540 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2164 Ex Parte Ghosh 12367200 - (D) WINSOR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Maass 11660724 - (D) FRAHM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LAU, HOI CHING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Ichiyama 11783932 - (D) TIMM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GORDON, MATTHEW E

2894 Ex Parte Schaefer et al 12398726 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/112(2)/102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. MONDT, JOHANNES P

2897 Ex Parte YANG et al 12104526 - (D) TIMM 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C PRASAD, NEIL R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Zopf 11890604 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3674 Ex Parte Durairajan et al 12329163 - (D) BAYAT 103 SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC. SAYRE, JAMES G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chila et al 12099352 - (D) CALVE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - General Electric GOYAL, ARUN

3742 Ex Parte Christopher et al 11502865 - (D) JUNG 103 FLETCHER YODER MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

3763 Ex Parte Mozdzierz et al 12434864 - (D) ADAMS 103 Covidien LP LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1791 Ex Parte Creighton et al 12730739 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

2497 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11787409 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. ARMOUCHE, HADI S

2814 Ex Parte Furst et al 11792619 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) YOUNG & THOMPSON SKYLES, TIFNEY L

The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. This portion of the statute requires the claims “be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standard is not one of exact precision. What one must determine is whether the language is as precise as the subject matter permits given the circumstances. Id.

Precision in claiming is not only dependent on the claim language itself; it is dependent on the description of the invention in the Specification. Although claims are not to be limited to specific embodiments set forth in the specification when it is does not appear that an applicant desired the claims to be so limited, the specification is the single best guide to determining the meaning of the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Claims that lack precise referents in the specification and require elaborate explanations extraneous to both the specification and the claims do not meet the standard of precision required by the statute. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–82 (CCPA 1970). In fact, inconsistent use or unclear use of the terms in the specification can even cause a claim that appears clear on its face to become unclear and indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1001 (CCPA 1971) (holding claims indefinite because the claims were, in calling for sealing an oxide surface with an alkali silicate to obtain an “opaque appearance,” inconsistent with the specification which defined an “opaque finish” as a flat-appearing finish which is not obtained when an alkali metal silicate is used as a sealant.).

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

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1384, 166 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1970) 2173.05(e)

Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) 2173.03


3711 Ex Parte Cerpok 13082559 - (D) BROWN 103 102/103 ROBERT A. PARSONS GRAHAM, MARK S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Godber et al 12611022 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD WATTS, JENNA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Sayal 10873556 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CASANOVA, JORGE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524052 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A

2457 Ex Parte Bae et al 10778838 - (D) FISHMAN 102 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Anttalainen et al 10595140 - (D) FRAHM 103 ERICSSON INC. MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2672 Ex Parte Price et al 12231123 - (D) POLLOCK 102 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

2683 Ex Parte Foth et al 11503446 - (D) HUGHES 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, AN T

2689 Ex Parte Hjulberg 12102424 - (D) FRAHM 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC BEE, ANDREW W.

3628 Ex Parte Moulckers 11103852 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. CLARK, DAVID J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Isserow et al 11974401 - (D) WOODS 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Gearhart Law LLC ISLAM, SYED A

3664 Ex Parte Scott et al 11786296 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2) 112(1) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD MANCHO, RONNIE M

3681 Ex Parte Oesterling 11864204 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. LI, SUN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte SCHERMEIER et al 12061894 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC YOUNG, RACHEL T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Eronen et al 11845964 - (D) DANG 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex parte CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6600175 et al 90010940 - (D) BUI 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON For Third Party Requester: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. KIELIN, ERIK J

novo, Impax, hiniker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Sang et al 10589199 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP SAHA, BIJAY S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Yun 11672571 - (D) ADAMS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Andrews Kurth LLP SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M

3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 11965883 - (D) JESCHKE 103 112(1) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Henning et al 12571493 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG ZIMMER, MARC S

1765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12380892 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated SALAMON, PETER A

“In order to anticipate, a prior art disclosure must also be enabling, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. The standard for enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). While section 112 states that the specification must enable one skilled in the art to ‘use’ the invention, “section 102 makes no such requirement as to an anticipatory disclosure . . . . Rather, anticipation only requires that those suggestions be enabled to one of skill in the art.” “Whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon [the] underlying factual findings.” Id (internal citations omitted.)

It has also been held that “proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.” Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Rather, the proper issue is whether the . . . patent is enabling in the sense that it describes the claimed invention sufficiently to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention.” Id. at 1383.

Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed Cir. 2006) 2121 , 2122 , 2152.02(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Kano et al 11881479 - (D) BOUCHER 102/103 Anne Vachon Dougherty CALLE, ANGEL J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte Hunt et al 12138917 - (D) BEAMER 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON QUIETT, CARRAMAH J

2666 Ex Parte Hohmann et al 10490453 - (D) FRAHM 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI

See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Claim 1 does not contain limitations requiring the reduction of wiring between the display and display controller on a smart card. In fact, claim 1 does not recite any wiring at all.

Hiniker Co., In re, 150 F.3d 1362, 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2103 , 2242 , 2258 , 2258.01 , 2642

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Kulas 12580236 - (D) GARRIS 102 CHARLES J. KULAS MAI, HUY KIM

schreiber, kloster, baxter travenol, continental can, therasense

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10763087 - (D) SHAW 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation HASSAN, AURANGZEB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Munsell et al 11828601 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TOLENTINO, RODERICK

2453 Ex Parte Miller 11865981 - (D) MOORE 102/103 IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Because the Examiner’s rejection is based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102—and not obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103—the Examiner may only use extrinsic evidence for the limited purpose of explaining what is inherent in the MPI-2 reference. See, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Extrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used to explain, but not to expand, the meaning of a reference [relied upon to show anticipation].”) (emphasis added). ...

Where a “reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence,” but “such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill . . . .” Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

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

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01 , 2145

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

2476 Ex Parte Elston et al 11929995 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 SLOMS, NICHOLAS

“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.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Cont'l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

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

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Tice 11172106 - (D) WIEKER 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH SORIANO, BOBBY GILES

3788 Ex Parte Roberts 11601292 - (D) CALVE 103 Technology & Innovation Law Group, PC GRANO, ERNESTO ARTURIO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Gomm et al 11367914 - (D) DELMENDO 103 103 TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY O TOOLE, COLLEEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Garzaniti et al 12178759 - (D) HOELTER 103 102/103 TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION KRAMER, DEVON C

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 10568761 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC HADDAD, MAHER M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Harris 12481670 - (D) HASTINGS 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC KASHNIKOW, ERIK

1785 Ex Parte Tran et al 11103827 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HIGGINS, GERARD T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Andreasson 12167761 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. AMIN, JWALANT B

2689 Ex Parte Shaffer et al 11460456 - (D) DIXON 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL JIANG, YONG HANG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Tomlinson et al 12472650 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HWANG, TIMOTHY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Clute et al 11713945 - (D) KINDER 112(2) 103 BGL/Autoliv ASP MANSEN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Storkel et al 10535436 - (D) GUIJT 102 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHIN, RANDALL E

3738 Ex Parte Dugan et al 11325973 - (D) ADAMS 103 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

3745 Ex Parte Brown et al 12122869 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EDGAR, RICHARD A

wyers

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Rekiere 11189907 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SARPONG, AKWASI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Abel et al 11494263 - (D) KERINS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Mylrea et al 10958190 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(1)/112(2)/103 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP THANH, LOAN H

“Our [reviewing court’s] case law holds that copying requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, Appellants provide declaratory evidence that at least two commercial entities had access to the patented product (and, indeed, negotiated for the product) and later developed a substantially similar product. 

3772 Ex Parte Ginn et al 12582937 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP HICKS, VICTORIA J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Zhu et al 12088097 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte McCaffrey et al 11856132 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11810358 - (D) PAULRAJ 103/obviousness-type double patenting Constellation Law Group, PLLC LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte El-Wardany et al 11928443 - (D) FINK 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY CALLE, ANGEL J.

2155 Ex Parte Tabuchi 10911305 - (D) KUMAR 102 IBM CORPORATION HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2193 Ex Parte Belluomini et al 11776454 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION (JVM) C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK V. MUSGROVE NGO, CHUONG D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Moubayed et al 12345212 - (D) MOHANTY 103 HODGSON RUSS LLP LE, LINH GIANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Nickel et al 11155985 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY STIGELL, THEODORE J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD and SILICONWARE, U.S.A., INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, and Respondent v. TESSERA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Respondent Ex Parte 6433419 et al 09/488,268 95000227 - (D) CHEN 102/103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK Third Party Requester: ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP NGUYEN, MINH T original GRAYBILL, DAVID E

remark, demaco, pentec, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10577754 - (D) SMITH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MARKS, JACOB B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sperle et al 11284263 - (D) SHIANG 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP RICHARDSON, JAMES E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11252320 - (D) HUGHES 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Peltier et al 12331621 - (D) HOELTER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ADAMOS, THEODORE V

3663 Ex Parte Katsumata et al 11476143 - (D) BROWNE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Lloyd 12011415 - (D) SMEGAL 103 102/103 Jerrod R. Lloyd AVILA, STEPHEN P

In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. Merely asserting commercial success of an article-alleged to embody an invention that is being offered for sale by another-is not sufficient. See Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-03 (BPAI 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).

Remark, Ex parte, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 2144.08

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   716.01(b) ,   716.01(d) ,   716.03 ,  716.03(a) ,  716.03(b)

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 2141.01(a)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ott 11625357 - (D) GOODSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fukushima et al 11812272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244764 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Swager et al 12268291 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Lu et al 12502211 - (D) KATZ 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Buhamad 12706858 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning”).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kleyne 11599496 - (D) KINDER 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. SHEARER, DANIEL R

3777 Ex Parte Cain et al 12569061 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SHAY GLENN LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

warner

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Westphal et al 12805950 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Schulz et al 11019606 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP PAPPAS, PETER

2468 Ex Parte Khoo et al 11581980 - (D) FETTING 103 LAW OFFICES OF BARRY N. YOUNG HARLEY, JASON A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Carey 11302725 - (D) FRAHM 103 DOCKET CLERK SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Salunkhe 12433439 - (D) OWENS 103 GE Power & Water Fletcher Yoder PC GILMAN, ALEXANDER

2858 Ex Parte Chandran et al 12194760 - (D) WILSON 103 HONEYWELL/IFL BROWN, LAMARR A

2894 Ex Parte Woo et al 12297899 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC TRAN, TONY

A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. In making this evaluation, all facts must be considered. The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it maydoubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.

Application of Warner, 379 F2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) 2142

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Tondra 12284989 - (D) CAPP 102 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952591 - (D) BEAMER 103 103 Conley Rose, P.C. HUANG, MIRANDA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Evans 11762366 - (D) FETTING 103 obviousness-type double patenting FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Ulics et al 12405324 - (D) GOODSON 103 103 AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS HOLDINGS LLC C/O MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Hodges et al 10105050 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness–type double patenting Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/SFO DO, PENSEE T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952586 - (D) BEAMER 103 Conley Rose, P.C. CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11423946 - (D) JEFFERY 103 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. GUADALUPE CRUZ, AIXA AMYR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Goldman et al 12169147 - (D) COURTENAY 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT FANG, PAKEE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte LU et al 12201976 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials HAN, JONATHAN

2824 Ex Parte Kau et al 12082137 - (D) DERRICK Dissenting WARREN 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Morris 10913071 - (D) FETTING 102/103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC WEISS, JOHN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Tholen et al 11648932 - (D) HOFFMAN 112(1)/102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD