wasica, verve

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kim et al 13100273 - (D) GUPTA 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christy LLP MOHADDES, LAD AN

1761 Ex Parte Boutique et al 12881276 - (D) INGLESE 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KHAN, AMINA S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Hegna et al 13483327 - (D) HAGY 103 41.50 101 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC CRAIG, DWIN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte KIM et al 12627888 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N

2483 Ex Parte Boyce et al 13347984 - (D) EVANS 102/103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. BAILEY, FREDERICK D

Anticipation requires that a single reference “describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.” Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., 2015-2078, slip op. 19 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Taghavi Nasrabadi et al 12550718 - (D) CHEN 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED SHERIF, FATUMA G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Cooper et al 12084603 - (D) CALVE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BOES, TERENCE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Pellenc 12527656 - (D) O’HANLON 103 Egbert Law Offices, PLLC NGUYEN, PHONG H

3765 Ex Parte Lewis et al 13363296 - (D) GUIJT 112(1)/102/103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP BRANDON, MEGAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Holvoet et al 14372978 - (D) SMITH 103 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago MOSS, NATALIE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte HASSANPUR et al 13742283 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 41.50 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise GEBRIL, MOHAMED M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Zhu et al 14077093 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm JEUDY, JOSNEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Olsson et al 12756068 - (D) DIXON 103 103 Steven P Tietsiwnrth TAYLOR JR, DUANE N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Cook 12895566 - (D) JENKS 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA

1656 Ex Parte TOVI et al 13850096 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 Wenderoth, Lind and Ponack LLP TSAY, MARSHA M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Ampulski et al 13618528 - (D) CASHION 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP CALL, DOUGLAS BRYANT

1744 Ex Parte Conner et al 12962328 - (D) BEST 112(2) 103 Da Vinci's Notebook, LLC LE, NINH V

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Heitz et al 13103445 - (D) DROESCH 112(2)/103 Morris & Kamlay LLP / 030120 MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2194 Ex Parte Hsu et al 13562691 - (D) CRAIG 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ANYA, CHARLES E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte WILSON et al 12774529 - (D) HUME 103 MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP BROWN, RUEBEN M

2447 Ex Parte Attwood et al 10742876 - (D) THOMAS 103 CROSE LAW LLC TANG, KAREN C

2468 Ex Parte Terry et al 13092873 - (D) DROESCH 103 PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP PVF — Brocade Communications Systems Inc. PATEL, PARTHKUMAR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Cheng 13892135 - (D) DANG 101 LEE & HAYES, PLLC JARRETT, SCOTT L

2651 Ex Parte Cain et al 12968539 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 WINSTEAD PC MOHAMMED, ASSAD

2659 Ex Parte Dolan et al 12470492 - (D) DANG 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION KOVACEK, DAVID M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Niiranen et al 13543331 - (D) SNAY 103 Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP ABB Inc. GUGGER, SEAN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Hurtis et al 11951074 - (D) McSHANE 112(2)/101/103 CRGO LAW AMSDELL, DANA

3629 Ex Parte Huang et al 13620022 - (D) MOHANTY 103 101/double patenting  Facebook/Fenwick WHITAKER, ANDREW B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte BAUR et al 12917508 - (D) CALVE 102 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) STAUBACH, CARL C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex parte JOHN G. PETERSEN Ex Parte 7914167 et al 90013550 - (D) HOFF 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Cc: Third Party Requester, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP Gifford, Krass, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, PC HOTALING, JOHN M original TRUONG, BAO Q

malico

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Costeux et al 13504561 - (D) DERRICK 103 The Dow Chemical Company GOLDEN, CHINESSA T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Grisenthwaite 13067805 - (D) SHAW 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Matsuo et al 13122054 - (D) MOORE 103 41.50 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. SULLIVAN, TYLER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte McCoy et al 12982419 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC HALEY, JOSEPH R

Malico, Inc. v. Cooler Master USA Inc., 594 F. App’x 621, 628 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential) (explaining that the ability to perform a particular action “without any reason to do so does not establish obviousness”).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Nishi et al 12546725 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) TRAN, TONY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Swift et al 12621283 - (D) HILL 103 103 GATES CORPORATION DUNWOODY, AARON M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11014571 - (D) JENKS 103 double patenting COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY ROBERTS, LEZAH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte FETTERMAN et al 13370173 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 Artegis Law Group LLP/NVIDEA LINDLOF, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte EFRATI 14027968 - (D) FRAHM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. / Vonage BLANTON, JOHN D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Hickman 14075646 - (D) Per Curiam 103 Bose Corporation PATEL, PREMAL R

2649 Ex Parte Perski 11889598 - (D) BUI 102/103 Muirhead and Satumelli, LLC NGUYEN, TU X

2694 Ex Parte LE SAINT et al 13472752 - (D) HOMERE 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION HORNER, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Shea 11849091 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 112(1)/101 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Downey et al 12388676 - (D) DOUGAL 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP MAHMUD, ATIYA S

3733 Ex Parte Siravo et al 12524427 - (D) STEPINA 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP JOHANAS, JACQUELINE T

3744 Ex Parte Kerpicci 13003284 - (D) SMEGAL 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Dunne et al 13893650 - (R) BRANCH Dissenting KENNY 102 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC LEIBOVICH, YAIR

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. Requester v. ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7060900 et al 95001982 - (D) SONG concurring McCARTHY 103 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC NASSER, ROBERT L original ESTRADA, ANGEL R

2857 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner Ex Parte 7299155 et al 11118044 95000670 - (D) SIU 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DLA PIPER US LLP ENGLAND, DAVID E original DESTA, ELIAS

Heyna, dunn

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Kronzer et al 13213160 - (D) OWENS 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Zou et al 13828772 - (D) TROCK 102/103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP MARTELLO, EDWARD

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Karlsson 13322952 - (D) SHAH 103 Patents on Demand, P.A. HAIDER, FAWAAD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Geissler et al 11876246 - (D) OSINSKI 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP VAN, QUANG T

3749 Ex Parte Conner et al 11625764 - (D) HILL 103 HONEYWELL/LKGlobal MILLER, SAMANTHA A

3763 Ex Parte Bourgeois et al 13586288 - (D) O’HANLON 112(2)/103 POLSINELLI PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Gale et al 12488858 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EVANS, BRYAN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Wilkerson et al 13934884 - (D) CASHION 102 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BELL, WILLIAM P

1767 Ex Parte Li 11447581 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Covestro LLC GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1788 Ex Parte SUGIURA et al 12500413 - (D) SMITH 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN

Also, it is not clear from the showing relied upon in the Specification whether the asserted improvement in performance results are due to the employment of the claimed pre-sizing agent consisting of an epoxy resin or the combination forming the pre-sizing agents discussed on pages 36—37 of the Specification (i.e., Epikote 828, Epikote 1001 and Pluronic F88). In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228 (CCPA 1966); In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439 (CCPA 1965) (“While we do not intend to slight the alleged improvements, we do not feel it an unreasonable burden on appellants to require comparative examples relied on for non-obviousness to be truly comparative. The cause and effect sought to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables.”).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965) 804.02

1797 Ex Parte Chinchilla 11799416 - (D) KRATZ 103 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Barhate et al 13873736 - (D) BRANCH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC SKHOUN, HICHAM

2163 Ex Parte Hagar et al 12263169 - (D) MacDONALD 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LE, MICHAEL

2171 Ex Parte Greenawalt et al 13315981 - (D) SILVERMAN 112(2)/103 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / Raytheon NUNEZ, JORDANY

2176 Ex Parte Sefton et al 13416258 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 FROST BROWN TODD LLC MERCADO, ARIEL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Panosyan et al 14085392 - (D) CASHION 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY QUIGLEY, THOMAS K

2842 Ex Parte Flores et al 14103433 - (D) KENNEDY 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED SKIBINSKI, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Patel et al 13204091 - (D) REIMERS 112(1)/112(2)/101 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC DAVIS, SHARON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kwok 11364055 - (D) HILL 112(1)/112(2)/103/double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC STUART, COLIN W

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Alphey et al 11733737 - (D) NEWMAN double patenting 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP MONTANARI, DAVID A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Damberg et al 14112347 - (D) HUGHES 103 Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP ELBINGER, STEVEN Z

REISSUE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte CONTOPANAGOS et al 14085128 - (D) YAP 112(2)/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HUGHES, DEANDRA M

animal, santarus, inphi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Marvin et al 13808920 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS BERHANE, ADOLF D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Memmott et al 13495069 - (D) JESCHKE 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC DAVIS, SHARON M

3657 Ex Parte Reinke et al 13090872 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. MOMPER, ANNA M

3669 Ex Parte Aixala et al 13130712 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 WRB-IP LLP CASS, JEAN PAUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Giuliani 11916066 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC COMINGS, DANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Joshi 13279174 - (D) WINSOR 103 112(1) Hewlett Packard Enterprise MORLAN, ROBERT M

We agree with the Examiner. The limitation “only” idle voice clients does not appear in the claims as originally filed, but rather was added during prosecution. Compare Spec. 5—6 (original claims), with Amendment after Final Rejection 2—5 (Jan. 26, 2015) (amended claims). The language at lines 2—3 of claim 28 recites “to send the transition management message only to voice clients that are idle and not to voice clients that are not idle” (Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added)). The ordinary meaning of “only,” which is consistent with claim 28, is “adverb ... 1 a : as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different. . . b : solely, exclusively.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 812 (10th ed. 1999). Sending a transition management message to “only” voice clients that are idle is sending the transition management message exclusively to idle voice clients, and not to voice clients that are not idle — a negative limitation.

It is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). “The ‘reason’ required by Santarus is provided, for instance, by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention.” Inphi v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte SANTINATO et al 12886618 - (D) MEYERS 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte McCulloch et al 13252072 - (D) TOWNSEND 101/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 13616317 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP MALLOY, ANNA E

1768 Ex Parte BARNES et al 13937317 - (D) ROSS 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Sinnema et al 10559360 - (D) KERINS 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DEXTER, CLARK F

3771 Ex Parte Fine et al 12541148 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC Requester, Respondent v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8192237 et al 95/002,400 13/033,127 95002400 - (S) SONG 103 Barclay Damon, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBERS, TRAVIS SLOAN

packard, ariad, vas-cath, ralston

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10573373 - (D) COTTA 103 Parker Highlander PLLC PARAD, DENNIS J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Abramov et al 13182029 - (D) NAGUMO 112(2)/103 CORNING INCORPORATED HOFFMANN, JOHN M

The Federal Circuit has explained that indefiniteness, as a subset of claim construction, is a question of law. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In particular, the court held, “[a]s the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.” Id.

Packard, In re, 751 F.3d 1307, 110 USPQ2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2173.02 , 2173.05(a) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.06

1793 Ex Parte van Os et al 12364470 - (D) OWENS 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. TURNER, FELICIA C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Spakevicius et al 13318591 - (D) SHAW 103 41.50 103 Apple c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SF TILLERY, RASHAWN N

2477 Ex Parte Aghili et al 12241256 - (D) BARRY 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. ESMAEILIAN, MAJID

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Azemati et al 13246779 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Maschoff Brennan LAMBERT, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte FERNANDO et al 12648903 - (D) ROSS 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA COLE, ELIZABETH M

1791 Ex Parte Gutknecht et al 13341563 - (D) KENNEDY 103 JAY BROWN LAW FIRM GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

2174 Ex Parte Kauranen 13575305 - (D) ENGLE 102/103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy TSAI, JAMES T

2859 Ex Parte Seman et al 13587107 - (D) HASTINGS 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Kocurek 13493984 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/103 103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) PATEL, VISHAL A

The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”’  Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id.  This test “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”  Id.  “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.”  Id.  This inquiry is a question of fact.  Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc)   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2173.05(g) ,   2181

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20 ,   2152.02(b) ,   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,  2164 ,  2181

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2163.02

3741 Ex Parte Li et al 13431400 - (D) HORNER 112(2) 102/103 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ALSTOM MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3786 Ex Parte Feldman et al 13767350 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. DIETERLE, JENNIFER M

kao, kollman, cree

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13762956 - (D) DENNETT 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DANIELS, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte AUGST 12725153 - (D) CRAIG 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Wepfer et al 13272524 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC LIN, KO-WEI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Leininger et al 12304535 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) PALENIK, JEFFREY T

1617 Ex Parte Woeller et al 13499861 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 41.50 103 Abel Law Group, LLP ZHANG, YANZHI

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When unexpected results are proffered by Appellants, Appellants must “provide [] an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner” in order to “establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.” Id. at 1068. One data point is insufficient to “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow [one having ordinary skill in the art] to reasonably extend the probative value thereof.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (Fed. Cir. 1979).

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2111.05 , 2112.01 , 2153.02

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d) 

1621 Ex Parte Huang et al 13989016 - (D) ADAMS 103 Parker Highlander PLLC MATOS NEGRON, TAINA DEL MAR

1653 Ex Parte Wang et al 13320585 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Noar 12865765 - (D) DENNETT 103 Acuity Law Group, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1756 Ex Parte Berke et al 11734118 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BOWDITCH & DEWEY, LLP DINH, BACH T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2492 Ex Parte Zhang 14494844 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP KORSAK, OLEG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kristensson et al 13514440 - (D) CAPP 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LOUIS, LATOYA M

We think the Examiner has articulated adequate non-hindsight reasoning to sustain the rejection. Id. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

thorpe, marosi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Formenti et al 13580437 - (D) SMITH 103 Silvia Salvadori, P.C. SOROUSH, LAYLA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Moscatelli et al 11948806 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP / AI ORR, HENRY W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte FUKASAWA 13167247 - (D) NAGUMO concurring HOUSEL 103 Browdy and Neimark, PLLC SALERNO, SARAH KATE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kleinwaechter et al 13000241 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/102 112(2)/102/103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. FISHER, MELISSA L

We are not persuaded. It is well settled that “[t]he patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[wjhere a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (affirming rejections under Sections 102 or 103).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 706.02(m) , 2113

1627 Ex Parte Katsikis et al 13418045 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) WANG, SHENGJUN

1675 Ex Parte McInnes et al 13851661 - (D) LaVIER 103/double patenting DORITY & MANNING, P.A. REYNOLDS, FRED H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Boerrigter 11134507 - (D) GUPTA 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1764 Ex Parte KUEHN et al 13524059 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company BROOKS, KREGGT

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Duarte et al 12200782 - (D) CHEN 103 Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm WONG, WILLIAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schoen 13043424 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 101 Facebook/Fenwick SCHMUCKER, MICHAEL W

3643 Ex Parte Van Gemert et al 13123942 - (D) MELVIN 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON VALENTI, ANDREA M

general foods, vogel, eli lilly

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C

AFFIRMED
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis 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. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing 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 determining 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).

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 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY

“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

caveney

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Kosuru 13460072 - (D) HOWARD 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ALLEN, BRITTANY N

See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence)

Caveney, In re, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   2133.03(b)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte SADAYUKI et al 13297551 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 McDermott Will and Emery LLP PELTON, NATHANIEL R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Aadal et al 13387094 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Baron et al 13436099 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC CASILLAS, ROLAND J

2177 Ex Parte Pokala et al 11775617 - (D) BUI 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Ca. Inc.) FABER, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Daly 12491876 - (D) BUI 103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110) CORBO, NICHOLAS T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte MIYAZAKI 12755946 - (D) FENICK 103 41.50 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC TAYLOR JR, DUANE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Kneisl 11308515 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS PARSLEY, DAVID J

3654 Ex Parte Furukawa et al 12449447 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 GATES CORPORATION TRUONG, MINH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bouvier et al 13639434 - (D) CALVE 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL