king, ngai, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte MALCOLM 12040047 - (D) KHAN 102 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2489 Ex Parte Yang et al 11140833 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation PHILIPPE, GIMS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Tava et al 12578405 - (D) GEIER 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte LOVELESS et al 11833986 - (D) HORNER 103 INDEL, INC. VAN, QUANG T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Cherney et al 12262721 - (D) CAPP 103 103 DEERE & COMPANY PHAN, THIEM D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Moore et al 11849507 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Edell Shapiro & Finnan, LLC PATEL, DHAIRYA A

The rationale underlying the "printed matter" cases has been extended to the analysis of patentability of method claims.  King Pharms. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278-79 (Fed, Cir. 2010) (applying the "printed matter" reasoning to method claims containing an "informing" step that could be either printed or verbal instructions).  In this case, the relevant inquiry is whether the recitation that the event statement conforms to the structure, " was seen to with ," as opposed to some other format structire, has a "new and unobvious functional relationship" with the method.  Id. at 1279.

There is no objective evidence of record that there is a functional relationship between the format structure of the event statement and the claimed method.  Indeed, the only mention in claim 1 of the event statement is in the final "wherein clause", i.e., "wherein the generated metadata is converted to an event."

Regardless of the format of the event statement, the underlying method recited in claim 1 is the same.  The specific format structure of the event statement does not depend on the method, and the method does not depend on the format of the structure of the event statement.  As such, it constitutes non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied on for patentability.  See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

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

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Howard 11716493 - (D) BAHR 103 PRAXAIR, INC. PETTITT, JOHN F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11771980 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate - MKM) RIGOL, YAIMA

innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Milner 10754886 - (D) FREDMAN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Walkling et al 12161666 - (D) KAHN 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOCCIO, VINCENT F

2175 Ex Parte BOEZEMAN et al 12467555 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Adler et al 11542822 - (D) EVANS 103 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP LE, BRIAN Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Course 10562314 - (D) KIM 102 McDermott Will & Emery HEWITT II, CALVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Drost et al 12110917 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 JANSSON MUNGER MCKINLEY & SHAPE LTD. TRUONG, THANH K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Hurwitz et al 11850300 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Ruhge et al 12234763 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Wibbeler et al 11931885 - (D) JENKS 103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) TRAN, QUOC A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Chathukutty et al 12060657 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH NGUYEN, STEVEN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Abouchakra et al 12484300 - (D) HUDALLA 103 Jordan IP Law (IBM-RSW) URBAN, EDWARD F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Wiryana et al 11967161 - (D) BEST 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (16463) GANDHI, JAYPRAKASH N

We begin by noting that Appellants do not point to any requirement that the prior art references used in a rejection must be analogous art to each other, and we are not aware of any such requirement.  Neither Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011), nor any of the other cases cited by Appellants establish such a requirement.  Each of these cases discusses the proper test and considerations used to determine whether a reference is analogous to the claimed invention.

If Appellants believe that references are from such disparate fields that an obviousness rejection is erroneous, the proper argument is that a person of ordinary skill in the art to wihich the invention pertains would not have had a resonable expectation of successfully combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention.  Appellants have not made such an argument. 

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Spectrum Brands, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Eveready Battery Company, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,849,360 B2 et al 10/164,239 95001683 - (D) ROBERTSON 102/103 Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. Eveready Battery Company, Inc. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC DIAMOND, ALAN D original KALAFUT, STEPHEN J

key pharms

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Romney 13018264 - (D) SHAW 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. (Marvell) MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L

2829 Ex Parte Jaffe 12514234 - (D) DERRICK 102/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

'[N]ot unlike a determination of infringement, a determination of anticipation, as well as of obviousness, involves two steps.  First is construing the claim, ... followed by, in the case of anticipation or obviousness, a comparison of the construed claim to the prior art."  Key Pharms. Inc. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

2863 Ex Parte Frenkil 12234395 - (D) ROESEL 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP BETSCH, REGIS J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Abernethy et al 11928450 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) UM, DANIEL H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Buddhikot et al 11862561 - (D) EVANS 112(1)/103 112(2) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J

2466 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 12026505 - (D) ARBES 102 102 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) TRAN, THINH D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Cunha 12695229 - (D) KALAN 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. KERNS, KEVIN P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Nicholas 11369310 - (D) SILVERMAN 112(1)/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. KEEHN, RICHARD G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte King 12142264 - (D) DIXON 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2845 Ex Parte Qi et al 12939043 - (D) OWENS 102/103 Guntin & Gust, PLC - BB DOCKET MANCUSO, HUEDUNG XUAN CAO

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Merszei 11380277 - (D) WORTH 101/103 112(2) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Bellamy et al 12268480 - (D) HOELTER 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC UTAMA, ROBERT J

3768 Ex Parte Raju 12161983 - (D) KAMHOLZ 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PENG, BO JOSEPH

warner, dystar, alcon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Burchfield et al 12016280 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. CAMPBELL, SHANNON S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Daniel et al 12572769 - (D) FREDMAN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HUGHES, SAMUEL T

3737 Ex Parte IRIE 13768405 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC AKAR, SERKAN

All statements premised on the exact location along 11b where the adhesive is applied, and specifically which side of protuberance 26 the adhesive can be found, are merely speculative because Sakamoto is silent in this regard (furthermore, Sakamoto does not illustrate any adhesive in any figure).

In such a situation, we are instructed by the predecessor to our reviewing court that

The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis. To the extent the Patent Office rulings are so supported, there is no basis for resolving doubts against their correctness. Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.

In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (emphasis added).

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11201410 - (D) DERRICK 103 103 STOUT, UXA, BUYAN & MULLINS, LLP GUPTA, YOGENDRA N

We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive the Examiner erred reversibly because it fails to address the Examiner’s proffered combination of prior art teachings and reasoning, and it is not necessary that the motivation and reasoning be from the prior art. See, e.g., DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating motivation to modify the prior art “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself”) (cited with approval in Alcon Research LTD. v. Apotex, Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nor is it of import that the motivation differs from that of Appellants. DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368 (“We have repeatedly held that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had.”) As to the argument that disclosure of a single step during which both demolding and delensing occurs leads away from the Examiner’s position, we find it without persuasive merit. See, e.g., Dystar., 464 F.3d at 1364 (“We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.”)

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Baran 12771855 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY WEINHOLD, INGRID M

3681 Ex Parte HAMILTON et al 12189225 - (D) WIEDER 103 102/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Wehling et al 12170946 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 ALLISON JOHNSON, P.A. HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11554926 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POINT, RUFUS C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Camarillo 12022987 - (D) WOODS 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP HOLWERDA, STEPHEN

edwards2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Zemlicka et al 11707248 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) YANKWICH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. KOSAR, ANDREW D

“However, it has long been recognized that when experimentation on human subjects is inappropriate, as in the testing and development of drugs and medical devices, the enablement requirement may be met by animal tests or in vitro data.” Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F.3d 1305, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Lenze et al 12297543 - (D) HOUSEL 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. LEE, REBECCA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11685771 - (D) KAISER 102/103 103 Patent Capital Group - Cisco PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Schilke et al 12204756 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. WHALEN, MICHAEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Bahramian et al 11041641 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/102 112(1)/102/obviousness-type double patenting Impedagen, LLC SHIN, DANA H

1674 Ex Parte Bahramian et al 11041797 - (D) FREDMAN 102 112(1)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 CFR 41.40(b) 112(1) Impedagen, LLC MCDONALD, JENNIFER SUE PITRAK

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12405052 - (D) KAISER 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SIM, YONG H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12657429 - (D) WIEDER 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12657980 - (D) WIEDER 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

3647 Ex Parte Greenhut 12653374 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EVANS, EBONY E

3682 Ex Parte Gaughan et al 11217290 - (D) HOELTER 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BROWN, ALVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Iannotti et al 12565039 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP SHARMA, YASHITA

atofina, harris, boesch, peterson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Weksler 11135781 - (D) WIEDER 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481) PayPal AKINTOLA, OLABODE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Frank et al 11302313 - (D) BAER 102 102/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 12006079 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 112(2) Dorsey & Whitney / INVENTION SCIENCE FUND KNUTSON, JACOB D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Morini et al 12448288 - (D) McKELVEY 103 LyondellBasell Industries ENG, ELIZABETH

We assume the Examiner did not reject based on anticipation because (1) no embodiment (i.e., example) described by Sacchetti falls within the scope of claim 14 and (2) ranges described by Sacchetti do not fall within the scope of claim 14, albeit the Sacchetti ranges overlap those of claim 14.

Cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999–1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (prior art temperature range of 100 to 500 ºC does not anticipate claimed range of 330 to 450 ºC.; prior art range of 0.001 to 1% oxygen to methylene chloride molar ratio does not anticipate range of 0.1 to 5.0%.; description of a genus in the prior art is not necessarily a disclosure of every species that is a member of that genus).

However, as is apparent from the claim chart, all the elements required by claim 14 are described by Sacchetti and the ranges of amounts of elements and property values described by Sacchetti overlap those of claim 14. Overlapping ranges establish the necessary prima facie case in the application on appeal. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a prima facie case of obviousness arises when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 275 (CCPA 1980) (overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art).

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2131.03

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2144.05

Boesch, In re, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 716.02(b) , 2144.05

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 716.02(d) , 2144.05

1768 Ex Parte AVTOMONOV et al 12428256 - (D) McKELVEY 103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Gannon et al 12331085 - (D) HORVATH 102/103 Morris & Kamlay LLP/ 030120-M CASANOVA, JORGE A

2196 Ex Parte Okmianski 11264188 - (D) BAER 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM, LLP MILLS, PAUL V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Cai et al 13044742 - (D) NEW 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte DEWEERD et al 12640689 - (D) WILSON 102/103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 WHATLEY, KATELYN B

1716 Ex Parte Devine et al 11829258 - (D) WARREN 103 PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC FORD, NATHAN K

1773 Ex Parte Song 11956420 - (D) WARREN 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. SASAKI, SHOGO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Chen et al 12015069 - (D) MORGAN 112(1)/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES HEBERT, THEODORE E

We remind Appellants and Appellants’ counsel that decorum and courtesy are expected when conducting business with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 37 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2012). As such, every effort should be made in future proceedings to avoid the use of language and tone that may be considered accusatory, condescending, or inflammatory. See, e.g., Reply Br. 1 (“the conferees, including two SPEs, somewhat incredibly maintain the specious argument . . . ignoring their own reference in a misguided effort to maintain a written description [rejection]”); id. at 3 (“The Answer adds nothing to the poor rejection . . . except to confirm the conferees not only fail to read their own references with a great deal of comprehension, they also fail to read the claims very closely as well.”).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Weel 12019015 - (D) BEAMER 103 Concert Technology Corporation DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2472 Ex Parte Kucuk et al 11468917 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP FARAHMAND, ASHIL S

The Examiner’s conclusory statement that one would have been motivated to do so “to reduce excessively allocated bandwidth” (Ans. 5) appears to be a product of hindsight reasoning—the result of the Examiner impermissibly using Appellants’ claims as a roadmap.

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Sugimoto 11089225 - (D) STEPHENS 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC TSAI, TSUNG YIN

2694 Ex Parte Miyazaki 11652977 - (D) BARRETT 103 Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz TUNG, DAVID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Yurochko et al 11080375 - (D) KRATZ 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Evans et al 12716311 - (D) REIMERS 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC BURKE, SEAN P

3654 Ex Parte Lakomiak et al 12335659 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY REESE, ROBERT T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Chontos et al 12189765 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 112(2)/102 Law Office of Jim Boice MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Browne et al 11593292 - (D) BROWN 112(2)/103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 POWELL LAW, PC MAESTRI, PATRICK J

3681 Ex Parte Haveliwala et al 10877775 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Krumrei 11714328 - (D) BROWN 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VINCENT L. CARNEY LAW OFFICE LAUX, DAVID J

3753 Ex Parte Olivera et al 11611443 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 ALCON MURPHY, KEVIN F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Sprouse et al 12436965 - (D) BEST 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Gikas et al 11313124 - (D) Per Curiam 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HASAN, SYED HAROON

2168 Ex Parte Guven et al 11968993 - (D) McKEOWN Dissenting McCARTHY 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP DWIVEDI, MAHESH H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Wolford 11396534 - (D) SAADAT 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HAILU, TESHOME

2443 Ex Parte Malden et al 10244137 - (D) MORGAN 103 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP DENNISON, JERRY B

2461 Ex Parte Periyalwar et al 11718006 - (D) HOFF 103 Fish & Richardson PC MATTIS, JASON E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Garcia Tello et al 12595119 - (D) HANLON 102/103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing ANYA, IGWE U

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Kerf 12294451 - (D) GOODSON 112(1) 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3748 Ex Parte Abram et al 11969936 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C. FAURECIA SHANSKE, JASON D

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
2900 Designs 2917 2913
SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. SEALY TECHNOLOGY LLC Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte D622531 et al 29/343,599 95001549 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 Black McCuskey Souers & Arbaugh THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ROPES & GRAY LLP KRAKOWER, SUSAN E original SEEGER, JANICE E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 INOVA LABS, INC. Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant v. INOGEN, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 6605136 et al 10/192,360 95001886 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. DIAMOND, ALAN D original SPITZER, ROBERT H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 SILVER PEAK SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent, v. Patent of RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant, Ex Parte 7428573 et al 11/229,016 95002308 - (D) POTHIER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FENWICK & WEST LLP LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 SILVER PEAK SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent, v. Patent of RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant, Ex Parte 7849134 et al 12/191,805 95002310 - (D) POTHIER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FENWICK & WEST LLP LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant v. PENTAIR LTD. and PENTAIR AQUATIC SYSTEMS (f/k/a PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC.) Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7815420 et al 11/981,754 95002007 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP Third Party Requester: McCarter & English, LLP DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original DWIVEDI, VIKANSHA S

packard, swinehart

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Inoue et al 11577705 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP PATEL, RONAK C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Brown 12609990 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2848 Ex Parte KATO et al 12366707 - (D) SMITH 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. FERGUSON, DION

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Manin et al 10586847 - (D) WARNER 103 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC MURPHY, DANIEL L

3688 Ex Parte Aarnio et al 11967608 - (D) CRAWFORD 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

AFFIRMED–IN–PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Bardman et al 12313714 - (D) DERRICK 102/103 103 Ronald Bakule - The Dow Chemical Company DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Xu et al 11733978 - (D) BEAMER 103 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP CALDWELL, ANDREW T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Khan et al 12480304 - (D) TIMM 103 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. JACKSON JR, JEROME

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Silver 12729049 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2)/102 112(1)/103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP WEAVER, SUE A

We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. In determining whether a claim is definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, “[t]he USPTO, in examining an application, is obliged to test the claims for reasonable precision . . . .” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We find that claim 1 satisfies this standard.  ...

The claim does not omit structure that provides for the recited function but instead the functional language further characterizes the structure of claim 1. See, e.g., In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”).

Swinehart, In re, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) 2114 , 2161.01 , 2173.01 , 2173.05(g) , 2183

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte ESSÉN et al 12892436 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP MAYES, DIONNE WALLS

1772 Ex Parte Merrill 12177740 - (D) SMITH 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC BULLOCK, IN SUK C

1774 Ex Parte Olivier et al 12383152 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER DUONG, THANH P

1781 Ex Parte Mulholland 12600284 - (D) KRATZ 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. GUGLIOTTA, NICOLE T

1793 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11348898 - (D) SMITH dissenting PAK 103 Weintraub Genshlea Chediak GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Perraud et al 12063422 - (D) PYONIN 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T

2492 Ex Parte Stayton et al 12235429 - (D) KAISER 102 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP SHEPPERD, ERIC W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Yoo et al 11819568 - (D) TIMM 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC WARD, ERIC A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Aulanko et al 10969095 - (D) CAPP Concurring-in-Part and Dissenting-in-part STAICOVICI 112(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KRUER, STEFAN

3685 Ex Parte Menadue et al 12138183 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2) 103 LAW OFFICES (San Jose) NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Scott 12018994 - (D) HILL 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

3746 Ex Parte Key et al 11004259 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. KRAMER, DEVON C

3765 Ex Parte Light et al 12619819 - (D) STEPINA 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. SZAFRAN, BRIEANNA TARAH LARELL

3781 Ex Parte Mickelson 12058412 - (D) GUIJT 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG MATHEW, FENN C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant v. A10 NETWORKS, INC., Requester Ex Parte 7,774,833 et al 10/668,455 95001811 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 103 2nd Reexam Group - Novak Druce + Quigg LLP For Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRET & DUNNER LLP WOOD, WILLIAM H original HO, VIRGINIA T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 YAHOO! INC. Requester and Respondent v. AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,269,636 B2 et al 10/612,480 95001734 - (D) CHEN 102/103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 BOOPSIE, INC., ZILLOW, INC., HOTPADS, INC., IDX, INC., REALPAGE, INC., PRIMEDIA, INC., CONSUMER SOURCE, INC., TRULIA, INC., and ZIP REALTY, INC., Requesters and Cross Appellants, v. SMARTER AGENT, LLC, Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6496776 et al 09/774,120 95001437 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 COOLEY LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: Perkins Coie, LLP WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original BEAULIEU, YONEL

3696 INTERNET PAYMENT EXCHANGE, INC. Requester v. IMAGEVISION.NET, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7567925 et al 10/719,889 95002017 - (D) KOHUT 112(2)/305/103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (DE) CARLSON, JEFFREY D original GRAHAM, CLEMENT B

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex parte BROCADE COMMUNCATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. Ex Parte 7774833 et al 10/668,455 90011769 - (R) MARTIN 102 2nd Reexam Group - Novak Druce + Quigg LLP For Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRET & DUNNER LLP CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original HO, VIRGINIA T

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 BOOPSIE, INC., ZILLOW, INC., HOTPADS, INC., IDX, INC., REALPAGE, INC., PRIMEDIA, INC., CONSUMER SOURCE, INC., TRULIA, INC., and ZIP REALTY, INC., Requesters and Cross Appellants, v. SMARTER AGENT, LLC, Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7072665 et al 09/774,119 95001436 - (R) POTHIER 103 COOLEY LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: Perkins Coie, LLP WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 BOOPSIE, INC., ZILLOW, INC., HOTPADS, INC., IDX, INC., REALPAGE, INC., PRIMEDIA, INC., CONSUMER SOURCE, INC., TRULIA, INC., and ZIP REALTY, INC., Requesters and Cross Appellants, v. SMARTER AGENT, LLC, Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6385541 et al 09/639,265 95001435 - (D) POTHIER 103 COOLEY LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: Perkins Coie, LLP WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original BEAULIEU, YONEL