general foods, vogel, eli lilly, aldrich

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chardon et al 11742019 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Zeng 11827741 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAYER, PAUL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Teratani et al 11408240 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1755 Ex Parte Fulton et al 12292346 - (D) TIMM double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The key question in any obviousness double patenting analyis is: "Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?"  General Foods Corp. v. Studiengessellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed, Cir, 1992) (discussing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  After determinig the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct.  In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

It is critical during the analysis that no part of the patent be used as "prior art" against the claims under review.  This includes the claims themselves. See In re Aldrich, 398 F.2d 855, 859 (CCPA 1968) ("double patenting rejection[s] cannot be based on section 103,... or on the disclosures of the patents whose claims are relied on to demonstrate double patenting or on the 'disclosures' of their claims... [P]atent claims are looked to only to see what has been patented, the subject matter which has been protected, not for something one may find to be disclosed by reading them") (emphasis added).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Miller 11958337 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Yin et al 12117927 - (D) FINK 102/103 KIRTON MCCONKIE RICHER, AARON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Kwong et al 11488799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHEN, XIAOLIANG

lifescan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Honda et al 11995600 - (D) SHAW 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. BUTLER, SARAI E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 12224809 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP PAIK, SANG YEOP

3763 Ex Parte Hu et al 11476416 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte King et al 12182465 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 102/103 Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11964058 - (D) KINDER 102 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY ELLIS, RYAN H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Aylor et al 12287070 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 103 ROBERT B. AYLOR GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Sukanen et al 12401062 - (D) ZADO 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. GOFMAN, ALEX N

2169 Ex Parte ARUNAGIRI et al 12767920 - (D) NEW 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS ALLEN, BRITTANY N

As such, a person of ordinary skill would be capable of performing these operations with pencil and paper, in her head.  See Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, 734 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  As sich, the steps performed are common procedures and noninventive, and we agree with the Examiner they would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the prior art.

2184 Ex Parte Mann 11540377 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY SUN, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Green et al 12883022 - (D) PYONIN 101/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DUFFIELD, JEREMY S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Bosan et al 12394495 - (D) COURTENAY 103 MOFFAT-RIM SHEN, QUN

2684 Ex Parte Wischmeyer 13086892 - (D) NEW 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. BURGDORF, STEPHEN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Vandiver 12831757 - (D) WOODS 102 Arent Fox LLP MILLNER, MONICA E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Bracken et al 12313297 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - Sony Computer Ent. GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Arlein et al 12241699 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HAILU, TADESSE

kuhle, king

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Subramaniam 12354974 - (D) ARBES 103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Takala et al 12323737 - (D) BUI 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP POTRATZ, DANIEL B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Wildfang 11908046 - (D) BROWNE 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. JONAITIS, JUSTIN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Basir et al 11830575 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. LOUIE, WAE LENNY

Neither this disclosure nor Appellant's attorney argument supports a finding that it would not be a matter of design choice to have Funk's voice portal server 104 provide speech recognition for numbers, as well as words, to determine a destination for routing purposes.  See, e.g., In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) (concluding that the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and "would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art") (citation omitted)

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) 2144.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Westrup 13012720 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Bulluck et al 11199494 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Egan, Peterman & Enders LLP. RIOJA, MELISSA A

We also emphasize that Appellants’ argument is undermined by legal precedent that, “[t]o anticipate, the prior art need only meet the inherently disclosed limitation to the extent the patented method does.” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2010). That is, based on the record before us, it is reasonable to believe the compositions of Sellstrom inherently exhibit surface isotherms to the same extent as the identical compositions claimed by Appellants.

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

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 Ex Parte Djordjevic 12134380 - (D) HOMERE 112(2) 103 John S. Economou AYASH, MARWAN

2159 Ex Parte Gross 12191999 - (D) McMILLIN 103 PATENTBEST MAMILLAPALLI, PAVAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Friskney et al 11964534 - (D) HOMERE 102 Daniels IP Services LTD. MILLS, DONALD L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Anastas et al 12272547 - (D) DEJMEK 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SASINOWSKI, ANDREW

2628 Ex Parte Noda 10911546 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 FISHMAN STEWART YAMAGUCHI PLLC JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

2637 Ex Parte Karstens 12043332 - (D) DEJMEK 112(1)/103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW LI, SHI K

2641 Ex Parte Fomin et al 12040131 - (D) BEAMER 103 Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Qualcomm LAI, DANIEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chaudhry 12441798 - (D) HOELTER 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3742 Ex Parte Dighe et al 12378167 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP NGUYEN, HUNG D

yamamoto

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 12399601 - (D) BEST 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. SMITH, PRESTON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Hollis 13312928 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC STODOLA, ROBERT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11541610 - (D) BEST 103 103 41.50 112(b) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. SMITH, PRESTON

We recognize that during prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. We, however, are reluctant to use the specification to construe claim language in a manner contrary to its unambiguous ordinary meaning. See, e.g., In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that applicants can correct errors in claim language and adjust claim scope by amending claims in prosecution). Our reluctance is reinforced by Appellants’ use of alternative language in other claims. We assume that Appellants choose the language used in their claims with care and purpose. If Appellants intended to limit sucrose to 30 wt.% or less of the juice’s sugar content, they have demonstrated that they know how to do so.

Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2111 , 2258

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Iezzi 13362788 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bey & Cotropia PLLC (SAIC CUSTOMER NUMBER) LOEWE, ROBERT S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11827964 - (D) HOMERE 103 Cha & Reiter, LLC WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M

2176 Ex Parte DeMesa et al 12104652 - (D) JENKS 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP DYER, ANDREW R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Sung et al 11329614 - (D) WIEDER 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Sangberg et al 12037392 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2646 Ex Parte KUMAR 12275037 - (D) KAISER 103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. SAMS, MATTHEW C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kolstad et al 12245974 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. ROGERS, LAKIYA G

ultramercial

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Shetty et al 12370655 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Wang 11032550 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC SAFAVI, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Hyltander et al 10529496 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3734 Ex Parte Barker et al 11952883 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Inskeep Intellectual Property Group, Inc. EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Weiser et al 11968671 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 41.50 103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lyseggen 11750704 - (D) PINKERTON 103 NOVAK DRUCE AND QUIGG LLP BETIT, JACOB F

2158 Ex Parte Radenkovic et al 12348383 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DL) SMITH, BRANNON W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2479 Ex Parte Couturier 10505227 - (D) HORVATH 103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) CHRISS, ANDREW W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Cowcher 12646193 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 EIP US LLP STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Claus et al 11495235 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. MARCUS, LELAND R

3694 Ex Parte Neece et al 11846000 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC RANKINS, WILLIAM E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Kuester et al 12033611 - (D) GOODSON 101 103 Kutak Rock LLP BALDORI, JOSEPH B

Having determined that claim 12 is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we must secondly consider the elements of claim 12 individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements of the claim transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The Examiner’s analysis under the machine-or-transformation test is germane to this second step of the Alice framework. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (holding that although the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test governing § 101 analyses, it “can provide a ‘useful clue’ in the second step of the Alice framework”).

The Examiner notes that claim 12 recites cards and a base, but determines that because the cards and base

do not actually perform the step of arranging a plurality of cards, or of playing the game, and since the method could be performed with common game playing items (e.g. a deck of cards and a table) this is not considered the use of a particular machine to perform any step of the claimed method, nor is it a meaningful tie to a machine or apparatus.

Ans. 10. Appellants argue that the claimed method is tied to a particular apparatus insofar as it recites a base having compartments sized and shaped to receive and retain cards. See App. Br. 12–13. Appellants assert that the base cannot be any ordinary table, as the Examiner contends, because playing a game on a table would not satisfy these express limitations in claim 12. See id. at 13; see also Reply Br. 5 (“The method claims literally cannot occur without the physical articles described in the claims.”).

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s analysis, in effect, inappropriately reads limitations out of claim 12.

Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 100 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2106

graham

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Kujda 11873373 - (D) MILLS 103 MPG, LLP AND YAHOO! INC. PAN, PHOEBE X

In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.

Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) 706.02(j) ,   706.02(m) ,   716.01(a) ,   804 ,   1504.03 ,   1504.06 ,   2141 ,   2144.08 ,   2158 ,   2258

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Collins 11857586 - (D) LaVIER 112(1)/112(2) 101 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES SMITH, KAITLYN ELIZABETH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Baker et al 11731944 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Bejin Bieneman PLC SELLMAN, CACHET I

1726 Ex Parte Hamrock et al 10224848 - (D) TIMM 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY APICELLA, KARIE O

1734 Ex Parte Pawlik et al 13011151 - (D) ROESEL 103 PPG Industries, Inc. LEE, REBECCA Y

1792 Ex Parte Stojanovic 12214109 - (D) OWENS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY SMITH, PRESTON

1799 Ex Parte Schuman 12353900 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 MEDLER FERRO PLLC YOO, REGINA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Cummings et al 11953663 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SWIFT, CHARLES M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Cockerille et al 11221314 - (D) BAER 103 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT - Foley) ZAIDI, SYED A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2681 Ex Parte Cooprider et al 11614158 - (D) SHIANG 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BAMERT, JOHN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte GAO et al 12388729 - (D) KINDER 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte Tooyama 12103169 - (D) IPPOPLITO 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BACON, ANTHONY L

chu, catalina, rice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 11966547 - (D) BARRETT 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. BADAWI, SHERIEF

2167 Ex Parte Hirsch et al 12407779 - (D) SHIANG 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Beck 10447823 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/103 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

3682 Ex Parte Brown et al 12423282 - (D) HILL 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings Corp. BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Viavant 11154867 - (D) MacDONALD 103 KRAGULJAC LAW GROUP, LLC / ORACLE AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2415 Ex Parte Drevon et al 10766843 - (D) NEW 103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M

Our reviewing court has held that the patentability of an apparatus claim "depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Marketing Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). ("It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.")

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

2424 Ex Parte James et al 11841531 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. BAIG, SAHAR A

2456 Ex Parte Kilian et al 11321326 - (D) HORVATH 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

2487 Ex Parte Cornett et al 12487405 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HONEYWELL/SLW DIEP, NHON THANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Wyse 12971805 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EBNER, KATY MEYER

3655 Ex Parte Schever 11656153 - (D) HOELTER 102 103 THE GATES CORPORATION CHAU, TERRY C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 13364798 - (D) JESCHKE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

In the context of a rejection based on design choice, the relevant issue is not necessarily whether the invention solves a stated problem or problems (nor whether the problems are known or unknown), but rather whether the alleged differences between the invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results" or whether they are "no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in the art." See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965). ...

Further, Appellants have not set forth any evidence showing unexpected results as compared to the prior art regarding, for example, reduced weight or avoiding discontinuities. Cf. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (reversing an obviousness rejection based on evidence of unexpected results and distinguishing cases affirming rejections in which the parties failed to provide any evidence).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 211.05 , 716.02(f) , 1504.20 , 2145 ,

aspex

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte WANG 12043017 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Lin 12184287 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC MITCHELL, KATHERINE W

Notably, the Examiner has construed the claimed phrase “configured to” in the aforementioned recitation of claim 1 to mean “capable of.” See Ans. 10. However, the term “capable of” is broader than the phrase “configured to,” which is more akin to “designed to.” See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In other words, it is possible for a hypothetical structure to be capable of deforming such that the structure has a size and shape sufficient for the structure to pass over a pulley and the structure not be configured to deform such that the structure has a size and shape sufficient for the structure to pass over a pulley.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Williams 12174523 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 HILLERY, NATHAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Koskey 12366868 - (D) KERINS 102/103 112(2)/103 41.50 103 LAW OFFICES OF DALE B. HALLING WARD, THOMAS JOHN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Podolski 12851417 - (D) McCOLLUM obviousness-type double patenting 103 Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (CH) KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Ramesh et al 12234067 - (D) HOMERE 102 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP CHAUDRY, MUJTABA M

2141 Ex Parte Montgomery et al 11220267 - (D) HOMERE 112(2) 101/103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General SONG, DAEHO D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Holt et al 11208704 - (D) HUDALLA 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kuhl et al 10856173 - (D) HOMERE 101/103 BLACKBERRY (Finnegan) SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

2689 Ex Parte Birman et al 12246679 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Wang et al 12053921 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - General Electric SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M

REHEARING

DENIED
4122 Ex Parte Shih 12945400 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC ROSEN, ERIC J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex parte HUNTS POINT VENTURES, INC. Ex Parte 7,574,272 B2 et al 09/975,749 90012284 - (D) CURCURI 103 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. CABRERA, ZOILA E original SELLERS, DANIEL R

andrew corp.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Joslin 12103722 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SMITH, NICHOLAS A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Barry 11264618 - (D) ADAMS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOSHI, SURAJ M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Wood et al 12302220 - (D) OWENS 103 Zilka-Kotab, PC AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Kazala et al 11972364 - (D) GREENHUT 112(2)/103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP WILSON, BRITTANY M

The Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning to demonstrate that one skilled in the art could not ascertain, in light of the Specification, whether or not a material has a coefficient of friction similar to nylon so as to satisfy the limitation in question.  See, e.g., Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, Inc., 847 F.2d 819, 821-23 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  As Appellants correctly point out (Reply Br. 2), the fact that "the coefficient of friction of nylon can vary depending of [sic] the form it is in and how tightly woven it is" (Final Act. 3; Ans. 10-11) is an issue that relates to breadth, not indefiniteness.

Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 6 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Pececnik 12752790 - (D) REIMERS 112(2)/103 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. MOSSER, ROBERT E

3742 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11996737 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP STAPLETON, ERIC S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Jung et al 11087727 - (D) ABRAMS 103 101 41.50 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC SCIACCA, SCOTT M

3742 Ex Parte Verna et al 12090933 - (D) STEPINA 103 112(1) American Air Liquide, Inc. PAIK, SANG YEOP

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Zeigler et al 11677643 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 102/103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. COX, ALEXIS K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12973093 - (D) ROESEL 103 MacMillan, Sobanski and Todd, LLC - FIRST SOLAR CHEN, KEATH T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Ha et al 12265304 - (D) PYONIN 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L

2132 Ex Parte Kangas et al 12275472 - (D) HAAPALA 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TSUI, DANIEL D

2155 Ex Parte Ramer et al 11929171 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 Millennial Media, Inc. LEWIS, CHERYL RENEA

2183 Ex Parte Sarkar 12171863 - (D) FISHMAN 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) HUISMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Vo 09967601 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DENNISON, JERRY B

2491 Ex Parte Hughes et al 11670059 - (D) BEAMER 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK GRACIA, GARY S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Chiu et al 12815779 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry) KARIKARI, KWASI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Freund 11609372 - (D) McGRAW 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP SAYADIAN, HRAYR

2823 Ex Parte TANAKA 12887925 - (D) SMITH 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP STARK, JARRETT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12590250 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Getsy 12502080 - (D) BROWN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. PASCUA, JES F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Ansari 11616988 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. PREVAL, LIONEL

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 TAIWAN FULGENT ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. Requester/Respondent v. SHFL ENTERTAINMENT, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7255344 et al 10/976,618 95001428 - (D) MARTIN 103 103 TRASKBRITT, P.C. /Bally Gaming, Inc. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ALSTON & BIRD LLP REIP, DAVID OWEN original LAYNO, BENJAMIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 ROCKWOOL INTERNATIONAL A/S Requester and Appellant v. Patent of KNAUF INSULATION GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7888445 et al 11/493,080 95000672 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 41.77(b) 102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) For Third Party Requester: KILPATRICK, TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KUGEL, TIMOTHY J original HEINCER, LIAM J

1796 ROCKWOOL INTERNATIONAL A/S Requester and Appellant v. Patent of KNAUF INSULATION LLC and KNAUF INSULATION SPRL Jointly, Patent Owner and Respondent  Ex Parte 7,772,347 B2 et al 11/657,933 95000675 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.77(b) 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) For Third Party Requester: KILPATRICK, TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KUGEL, TIMOTHY J original HEINCER, LIAM J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY Appellant and Patent Owner Ex Parte 6283044 et al 09/330,150 90006283 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP original BROOKS & KUSHMAN PC ENGLISH, PETER C original CHEN, JOSE V