angstadt, vaeck, armbruster, marzocchi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Stanton 11601524 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. CHANDRA, SATISH

1756 Ex Parte Detournay et al 12305444 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Solvay America, Inc. PHASGE, ARUN S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2879 Ex Parte Tu et al 12440039 - (D) OWENS 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS STERN, JACOB R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Becken et al 11992369 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification is not enabling…Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When “a [S]pecification disclosure…contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented[,]” such [S]pecification disclosure “must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975) (quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01 , 2164.06 , 2164.08(b)

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01 ,   2144.08 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(c) ,   2164.03 ,  2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) , 2161 , 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) 2107.01 ,   2107.02 ,   2124 ,   2163 ,   2163.04 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.04 ,   2164.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12372681 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte Hildebrandt et al 11911185 - (D) ZADO 103 102/103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP MANDEVILLE, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Franer et al 10943222 - (D) WIEKER 103 102/103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC MCEVOY, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Guilford et al 10289934 - (D) JENKS 103 Daneker, McIntire, Schumm, Prince, Manning & Widmann, P.C. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mager et al 11732574 - (D) SMITH 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

1766 Ex Parte Rische et al 11732575 - (D) SMITH 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Lessing et al 12339983 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 TERADATA CORPORATION PEACH, POLINA G

2166 Ex Parte Malik 12043521 - (D) SHIANG 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC YEN, SYLING

2172 Ex Parte LEE 11835673 - (D) HARLOW 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HUR, ECE

2199 Ex Parte Besbris et al 11281887 - (D) SHIANG 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan MITCHELL, JASON D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Brown 11687545 - (D) BEAMER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) DUONG, DUC T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte McCloud et al 12966953 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Moon et al 12497261 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP TRAN, NGUYEN

2864 Ex Parte Tran et al 12244096 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HWANG, TIMOTHY

Jung, chester, jung

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Maguire 12731554 - (D) WARREN 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL LAIOS, MARIA J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Haruna et al 12418383 - (D) GUIJT 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. JOSHI, SURAJ M

The Examiner’s notice requirement “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

2482 Ex Parte Kitahara et al 10586235 - (D) SAADAT 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KIM, HEE-YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Julian 11020342 - (D) DIXON 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PATEL, DHAVAL V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Lownds et al 11354928 - (D) PLENZLER 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WEBER, JONATHAN C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Albin 12948167 - (D) OWENS 103 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP STEIN, MICHELLE

1782 Ex Parte Pokusa et al 12435768 - (D) OWENS 103 103 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP LAN, YAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Sung et al 11603856 - (D) DIXON 102 102 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. GUADALUPE CRUZ, AIXA AMYR

See In re Jung, 637 F3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132.”).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02

2492 Ex Parte Shinde et al 11606225 - (D) SAADAT 103 102/103 Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri, LLP. C/O CPA Global MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Carlucci 12154018 - (D) PINKERTON 103 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP COLAN, GIOVANNA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Lesk et al 10725857 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 112(1) 103 FELDMAN GALE, P.A. GEHMAN, BRYON P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte KONSTI et al 12617852 - (D) DELMENDO 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY CHANG, VICTOR S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Cowham et al 11590142 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FORMAN, JAMES Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Wagoner 11740518 - (D) DIXON 103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC PERROMAT, CARLOS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Vorderbruck et al 11571557 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP SMITH, JASON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Mason 11977985 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 VINCENT L. CARNEY LAW OFFICE SELF, SHELLEY M

3744 Ex Parte Howe et al 11017614 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation COMINGS, DANIEL C

gordon, ariad, abbvie, rochester

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte LU et al 12103730 - (D) ZADO 102/103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hinton 11010228 - (D) KOHUT 102 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON AVERY, JEREMIAH L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Houston et al 13116973 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHENG, DIANA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Cloft 11823496 - (D) KINDER 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. KIM, CRAIG SANG

Examining the entirety of each of the prior art references to determine whether it would have been obvious to combine Olsen’s electrically driven oil system into Champion, we conclude it would not because doing so would render Champion unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2143.01 , 2144.08

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Moskowitz 11895388 - (D) DEJMEK 103 103 NEIFELD IP LAW, PC OKEKE, IZUNNA

2491 Ex Parte Viamonte Sole 12144201 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 102/103 RATNERPRESTIA DESROSIERS, EVANS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Chen et al 12170319 - (D) LENTIVECH 102 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED BILODEAU, DAVID

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Freeman 13168621 - (D) PLENZLER 103 102 SCHLUMBERGER-DOLL RESEARCH ANDREWS, DAVID L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Subkowski et al 11922650 - (D) PER CURIUM 112(1)/112(2)/102 112(1) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) HA, JULIE

A “generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, “the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181

AbbVie Duetschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014)  2163 ,   2163.01 ,   2163.05

The Federal Circuit confronted facts similar to those here in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In that case, the patent claimed a method of selectively inhibiting the enzyme PGHS-2 (also known as COX-2) by “administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product in a human.” Id. at 918. The patent “described in detail how to make cells that express either COX-1 or COX-2, but not both …, as well as ‘assays for screening compounds, including peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product.[’]” Id. at 927.

The court held that the disclosure of screening assays and general classes of compounds was not adequate to describe compounds having the desired activity: without disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, or small organic molecules have the desired characteristic, the claims failed to meet the description requirement of § 112. See id. (“As pointed out by the district court, the ‘850 patent does not disclose just ‘which “peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules” have the desired characteristic of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2.’ … Without such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2163

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte CHAUDHRY 12430761 - (D) McKEOWN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PARK, GRACE A

2167 Ex Parte Wong et al 10888772 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Baker Botts LLP KHAKHAR, NIRAV K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Baylon 11562517 - (D) DANG 103 ARRIS Group, Inc. TORRENTE, RICHARD T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Haynes et al 12140570 - (D) SHAW 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG PAPPAS, PETER

digitech, diamond

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Chandrachood et al 11589598 - (D) HUDALLA 103 Law Office of Robert M. Wallace CHANDRA, SATISH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Weng et al 11976058 - (D) HOUSEL 103 Joe McKinney Muncy RAO, SHRINIVAS H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Haehnel et al 12476659 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 Cozen O'Connor SINGH, KAVEL

3676 Ex Parte Stewart et al 12389715 - (D) HORNER 103 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. WALLACE, KIPP CHARLES

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Miesel 12623484 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 MEDTRONIC, INC. (NEURO/MRG) LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

3788 Ex Parte Bowers et al 11800058 - (D) WORTH 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1676 Ex Parte WONG et al 13592398 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 Ella Cheong Hong Kong NEWMAN, MINDY B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Starr et al 11358832 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 Spectra Logic Corporation KABIR, JAHANGIR

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 10548187 - (D) HUME 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC JOSHI, SURAJ M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte New et al 12003427 - (D) HUGHES 103 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP SASINOWSKI, ANDREW

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Beilfuss et al 11159056 - (D) FREDMAN 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CORNET, JEAN P

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11347804 - (D) GRIMES 102 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

1632 Ex Parte Berg et al 12282668 - (D) FREDMAN 102 GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Andersson et al 11944773 - (D) SIU 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC WONG, XAVIER S

2431 Ex Parte William Gibbens 12450533 - (D) MacDONALD 101/103 THOMSON Licensing LLC ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

We conclude that a Bilski “transformation” does not include mere transformation of information as argued by Appellant because such information is not an article. “To qualify as a manufacture, the invention must be a tangible article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1349 (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980)).

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

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Marsh 11363639 - (D) HUDALLA 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG LIAO, HSINCHUN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Berg et al 11851638 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Crawford et al 10585902 - (D) WORTH 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. DESAI, HEMANT

3741 Ex Parte Kallappa 12132847 - (D) CALVE 102/103 O''Shea Getz P.C. NGUYEN, ANDREW H

3777 Ex Parte Sato et al 11629340 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. REMALY, MARK DONALD

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Zi 12411844 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 Staas & Halsey LLP MENSAH, PRINCE AKWASI

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. Third Party Requester and Cross-Appellant v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Appeal Respondent Ex Parte 7779459 et al 11/869,287 95002250 - (D) McKEOWN 102 102/103 IRELL & MANELLA LLP Third Party Requester: VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP GE, YUZHEN

chevron

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Najdek et al 10618803 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Estee Lauder Companies FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1617 Ex Parte Chowdhury 12102342 - (D) GRIMES 102 MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLC AZPURU, CARLOS A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Larson et al 11303135 - (D) KRIVAK 103 HONEYWELL/IFL SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Yi 12835125 - (D) CRAWFORD 102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Heiligenmann et al 12514099 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation COLEMAN, RYAN L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2131 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 11607882 - (D) THOMAS 102 102 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC MACKALL, LARRY T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte McMahan et al 11307838 - (D) KIM 103 101 MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM SCOTT, RANDY A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Giacomoni et al 11466613 - (D) FREDMAN 103 THE ESTEE LAUDER COS, INC JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Obrecht et al 12030971 - (D) GARRIS 103 LANXESS CORPORATION FINK, BRIEANN R

1772 Ex Parte Chewter et al 12301169 - (D) DERRICK 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY NGUYEN, TAM M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Stauder et al 12167810 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 Toler Law Group Boeing (TLG) CHAD, ANISS

2194 Ex Parte Abdelhadi et al 11936285 - (D) KUMAR 112(2)/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) DORAIS, CRAIG C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Bae et al 11249273 - (D) THOMAS 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MENDOZA, JUNIOR O

2455 Ex Parte Radulescu et al 10530420 - (D) SMITH 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KIM, EDWARD J

2462 Ex Parte YU et al 12557944 - (D) HORVATH 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. RUSSELL, WANDA Z

Appellants argue Saban's only priority claim is to the '154 Application because the last priority claim Saban made prior to being published was to the '154 Application, and to the extent Saban made an inconsistent priority claim to the '157 Application in his Declaration, the priority claim made in the ADS is controlling. ... We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
...
Through § 119(e)(1), Congress has expressly indicated that when an application is filed for an invention previously disclosed in a provisional application and contains a specific reference to that provisional application, it shall have the same effect as if it was filed on the same date as the provisional application provided (1) it is filed within 12 months of the filing date of the provisional application, (b) it names an inventor or inventors named in the provisional application, and (c) its invention is disclosed in the provisional application in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement). See 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1)
...

Therefore, we find that because Saban has complied with all statutory requirements for claiming priority to the '157 Application, including continuously containing a specific reference to the '157 Application in its Specification since its filing date, Saban "shall have the same effect ... as though filed on the date of the ['157] provisional application." 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (emphasis added).  When Congress speaks to a precise question at issue, as it has in 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1), and "the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambuously expressed intent of Congress."  Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984).

2482 Ex Parte Zhao et al 12413067 - (D) DILLON 103 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) JEBARI, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte IANSON 11332060 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte GAULMIN et al 11764825 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. LI, CE LI

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION Requester, Respondent v. MEDTRONIC INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,468,073 et al 11/401,800 95000653 - (D) SONG 112(1)/103 103 MEDTRONIC, INC. DAWSON, GLENN K original GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J

datamize, nautilus, interval

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Gargaro et al 12245971 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) SCHWARTZ, DARREN B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Chan et al 11614179 - (D) WIEDER 102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Warkentin et al 11343175 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BEHRINGER, LUTHER G

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Horn et al 12692332 - (D) MacDONALD 102 102 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION SCHELL, JOSEPH O

2184 Ex Parte TRIECE et al 11928132 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 King & Spalding LLP SUN, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11447138 - (D) MCKONE 103 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NGUYEN, THAI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Ma et al 12653722 - (D) PAK 103 obviousness-type double patenting Winkle, PLLC CHEN, XIAOLIANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Sharma et al 12304007 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Wellstat Management Company. LLC WEST, THEODORE R

1674 Ex Parte Kay et al 10259226 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing ANGELL, JON E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Butts et al 11704809 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED LAZORCIK, JASON L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Cheng et al 12017016 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG BHATIA, AJAY M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11731977 - (D) FISHMAN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI

2452 Ex Parte Chevanne et al 10673458 - (D) SMITH 103 Wolff & Samson (ALU) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2456 Ex Parte Hoggan 12205706 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/SFO SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

2485 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos 11494929 - (D) STRAUSS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TORRENTE, RICHARD T

2495 Ex Parte Jaquette et al 11470804 - (D) DILLON 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP IBM Tucson LEWIS, LISA C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bosch et al 11938957 - (D) EVANS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Smith et al 13176436 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. LE, MARK T

3653 Ex Parte Brewer et al 12468973 - (D) HOELTER 103 Prass LLP MORRISON, THOMAS A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Knight 10/722,473 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

In our view, Applicant's Specification expands upon how the "indicating" steps of the claim may be performed to such an extent where there is "no objective definition identifying a standard for determing when" a method of relaying a story actually "indicat[es]" a certain fact (e.g., "a character's desire ... to remain asleep ... until a particular event occurs" as recited in claim 1).  See Datamize, LC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated by, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)4; Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 2014 WL 4435871, at *5 Fed. Cir. Sept. 10. 2014) ("Although absolute or mathematical precision is not required, it is not enough ... to identify some standard for measuring the scope of the phrase .... [Rather, t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.") (citations and quotations omitted).  We find the discussion in Datamize analogous to the circumstances here.5

4 While the Supreme Court in Nautilus disagreed with the standard for determining indefiniteness as applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Datamize the Court did not suggest any disagreement with the holding in Datamize that a completely subjective construction of a term renders the term indefinite.  See generally Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. 2120.  Although in the context of litigation based on an isued patent, the standard enunciated in Nautilus for determining definiteness - whether a patent's claims "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty" (id. at 2029) - is arguably less of a hurdle to establishing indefiniteness than the "insoluably ambiguous" standard applied in Datamize. Thus, we have no reason to suspect that, had the analysis in Datamize been performed under the "reasonable certainty" standard, the Federal Circuit would have reached a different conclusion.

5 In addition to our discussion herein, we recognize that, in Datamize, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court construction that the ordinary meaning of "aesthetically pleasing" "includes 'having beauty that gives pleasure or enjoyment' or, in other words, 'beautiful[,]'" but concluded the phrase was indefinite. 417 F.3d at 1348


3762 Ex Parte Cazares et al 12686122 - (D) ADAMS 103 BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A

3777 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11816424 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LUONG, PETER