Friday May 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/933,723 SCHEINER 112(1) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schurzky et al 10/492,610 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) UNIVATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

Ex Parte Sandell et al 10/953,263 KRATZ 103(a)/112(2) 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Univation Technologies, LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Burleson 10/640,756 HUGHES 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) McGinn Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

Ex Parte Holenstein et al 10/881,699 HUGHES 103(a) Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11/166,901 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, PC (Seagate Technology LLC) EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Ex Parte Fukushige et al 11/047,723 THOMAS 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Elving et al 10/209,036 LUCAS 102(e) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER CARDWELL, ERIC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/423,155 HORNER 103(a) Kagan Binder, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bascom et al 10/385,125 HORNER 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

Ex Parte Wittens 10/181,703 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Domb et al 10/083,413 SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) PABST PATENT GROUP LLP EXAMINER FLOOD, MICHELE C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte DeMarcken 10/272,426 LORIN 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Merriman et al 09/577,798 HORNER 102(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC EXAMINER LANEAU, RONALD

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

Examiner Affirmed

inter partes

IGT Appellant and Patent Owner v. Bally Technologies, Inc. Requestor 95/000,280 6,620,046 TURNER 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C

ex parte

Ex parte SATELLITE TRACKING OF PEOPLE LLC 90/008,047 6,405,213 TURNER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: GIBBONS P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K

Examiner Reversed

merged inter partes and ex parte

HARRY SHANNON Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ENPAT, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,005 and 90/006,330 6,328,260 LEBOVITZ 103(a) First Third Party Requester for 95/000,005 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor and Zafman Second Third Party Requester for 90/006,330 Clements Bernard PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C

modine, rinehart, syntex, gurley, fulton,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ware et al 11/142,651 GRIMES 112(2)/102(b)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER CHEN, SHIN LIN 

“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Kawabata et al 10/472,753 NAGUMO 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K 

Ex Parte Lawrence et al 10/399,797 TIMM 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNENHULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Day et al 10/606,582 SIU 112(1)/103(a)/101 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Kelly 10/820,484 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Wilbanks 10/445,584 SILVERBERG 103(a) MICHAEL J. COLITZ, JR. EXAMINER ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kocher et al 10/204,374 BAHR 103(a) Striker Striker & Stenby EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D 

Ex Parte Veith 10/693,555 HORNER 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Peart et al 10/759,280 ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY 

Obviousness does not require absolute predictability; however, at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success can support a conclusion of non-obviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1053-54 (CCPA 1976). 

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte McElroy 10/368,425 LANE 103(a)/102(e) Foley and Lardner, LLP EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D 

When a reference teaches away

it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination.In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200.

Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145 

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

Wednesday May 19, 2010

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte French et al 09/731,629 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Wehunt et al 11/332,651 MOHANTY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER OYEBISI, OJO O

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Trese et al 10/068,314 O’NEILL 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Belau et al 10/452,033 STAICOVICI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER MARCETICH, ADAM M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ghosh et al 10/841,991 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

REEXAMINATION

Examiner Reversed

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte AMERICAN CALCAR INC. 90/007,896 6,282,464 SONG 103(a) CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP Third Party Requester: CROWELL & MORING, LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J

dillon, mayne, payne, hammack,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Bays et al 10/682,289 ADAMS 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER DAVIS, RUTH A 

Ex Parte Donde et al 10/916,243 GREEN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R 

In order to make a prima facie case of obviousness based on the structural similarity between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the prior art, not only must the structural similarity exist, but the prior art must also provide reason or motivation to make the claimed compound. See In re Dillon, 919 F. 2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), In re Mayne, 104 F. 3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313 (CCPA 1979) 

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145 

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145 

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09 

Ex Parte Faecke et al 11/007,015 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR 

Ex Parte Yamashita 10/794,187 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Fayet et al 10/529,533 DELMENDO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T 

Ex Parte Wieners et al 10/257,002 NAGUMO 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) PROPAT, L.L.C. EXAMINER AHMED, SHEEBA 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/288,727 BARRY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Nomura et al 09/969,845 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Bates et al 09/848,573 CRAWFORD 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E 

Ex Parte McClary 11/101,897 KERINS 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P 

A principal purpose of the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,

is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.

In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970). 

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Marlborugh et al 10/497,925 FREDMAN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHIN, CHRISTOPHER L 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McCarty 10/347,095 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER GOLD, AVI M 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Simpson 10/052,617 NAPPI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER THOMAS, ASHISH 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Gluck 11/022,751 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL

gurley, para-ordnance, harza, freeman,

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Koh et al 09/802,857 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Guglielmotti et al 10/560,836 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI Ex Parte Shy 11/123,360 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP 

See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; see also, Para-Ordnance Manufacturing v. SGS Importers International Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed Cir. 1995) (a warning against use of an element, rather than omission of mention of the element, is required to find teaching away). 

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Forman et al 10/835,684 HOMERE 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D 

Ex Parte Nutter et al 10/145,374 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Sharp 09/765,985 LORIN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MITTAL, KRISHAN K 

Cf. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced".) 

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. 90/008,132 6,624,096 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL F. SNYDER VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L 

Collateral estoppel (also called issue preclusion) “precludes relitigation in a second suit of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This doctrine applies only if: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Id. 

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01

suitco surface, dunbar, rowe

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ho et al 10/646,289 JEFFERY Dissenting DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M 

“[W]ith original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco, No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). When a claim uses the open-ended term, “comprising,” “this court has instructed that any such construction be consistent with the specification . . . and that the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at *4 (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Imura et al 10/697,041 COURTENAY 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KIM, ANDREW

Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention.

Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lamont et al 10/491,811 GRIMES 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

“Where . . . a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER REVERSED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte MERITOR LIGHT VEHICLE SYSTEMS 6,273,501 90/008,657 SONG 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY, & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: Webasto AG EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

fisher, brenner, golight

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lantz et al 10/143,822 WALSH 101/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SAUNDERS, DAVID A

The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point--where specific benefit exists in currently available form-- there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966).

Courts have used the labels “practical utility” and “real world” utility interchangeably in determining whether an invention offers a “substantial” utility. Indeed, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “‘[p]ractical utility’ is a shorthand way of attributing ‘real-world’ value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.” Nelson [v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856 (CCPA 1980)](emphasis added). It thus is clear that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Id. at 1378.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02 

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Nancekievill 10/939,992 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALROBAYE, IDRISS N 

Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/347,481 HOMERE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Abolfathi et al 11/271,360 MOHANTY 102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W 

Ex Parte Gopalan 09/888,470 LORIN 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Boehmer et al 10/866,627 HANLON 112(1) RICHMOND, HITCHCOCK, FISH & DOLLAR EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte CONSTRUCTION MASTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6,721,623 90/008,298 EASTHOM 103(a) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M

“Structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 355 F.3d 1327, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

case, ICON

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Spormann et al 11/218,386 McCOLLUM 103(a) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER MEAH, MOHAMMAD Y 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Harai 10/561,503 HASTINGS 102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

Ex Parte Huttlin 10/823,926 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE 

Ex Parte Kaye et al 10/877,771 NAGUMO 103(a) BEYER LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K 

The Examiner’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent to establish obviousness is misplaced because, as our reviewing court pointed out, "[p]recedent cannot establish facts." Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc. , 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . 2301.03 

Ex Parte Komatsu et al 10/830,449 KIMLIN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN 

Ex Parte Manning et al 10/341,375 NAGUMO 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Van Den Berg et al 10/571,814 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Mitra et al 11/251,664 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Flinner et al 10/989,809 O’NEILL 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN 

REEXAMINATION 

AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte RPM SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent US 6,659,375 90/007,333 SONG 102(b)/103(a) cc: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Edward J. Kondracki MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A 

see also In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”).

ferguson2, gutta, oelrich, steele, wilson,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Malkin 10/437,078 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Andrzejak et al 10/418,075 MARTIN 101/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CASANOVA, JORGE A 

Although it is possible for claimed subject matter to be patent-ineligible even though it fits within one or more statutory categories under § 101, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Ex parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1034 (BPAI 2009) (precedential), the Examiner has not demonstrated that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter. In Gutta, for example, the Board held that a claim which recites a “machine” or an “article of manufacture” under § 101 nevertheless will be deemed to recite patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101 if the claim “involves a mathematical algorithm” and if the answer to either of the following two questions is “no”:

(1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., “not a mere field-of-use label having no significance”)?

(2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either “in all fields” of use of the algorithm or even in “only one field?”

Gutta, 93 USPQ2d at 1031 (footnotes omitted). Because the Examiner has not established that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter even though they recite a machine, we will not sustain the § 101 rejection of any of these claims. 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Malkin 11/220,672 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER KOLB, NATHANIEL J 

An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). 

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Knauseder 11/229,178 FRANKLIN 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER STEPHEN, EMEM O 

Ex Parte Penny et al 10/411,056 CRAWFORD 103(a) JACK J SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL 

Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,017 CRAWFORD 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D 

Where claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a § 103 rejection of the claims must be reversed as impermissibly involving speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962). If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, “the subject matter does not become obvious - the claim becomes indefinite.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). 

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06 

Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Chang et al 11/083,261 McCOLLUM 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A 

"[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). "Only if the ‘results of optimizing a variable’ are ‘unexpectedly good’ can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). "[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05 

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145 

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Rice et al 10/988,168 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R 

REEXAMINATION AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex Parte 5283862 et al 90/008,240 TORCZON 112(2)/112(6)/103(a) GILBRETH & ASSOCS., for the patentee AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN, LLP, for the requester EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J

medichem

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte But et al 11/224,165 WALSH 103(a) WILKINSON & GRIST EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E 

To sustain a conclusion of obviousness, the prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success for modifying a known method. E.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L. , 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Ex Parte Wolfert et al 10/523,919 LEBOVITZ 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR 

Ex Parte Yang et al 11/118,079 GRIMES 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER COOK, LISA V 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Acharya et al 10/438,431 HOFF 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER RUSSELL, WANDA Z 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Wiechers et al 10/635,467 HOFF 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, LENNIN R

o'farrell, life techs, bicon, stumbo

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Wells et al 10/153,207 SPIEGEL 112(1)/102(e) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER SAOUD, CHRISTINE J 

Ex Parte Childress et al 11/144,464 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. C/O DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP EXAMINER BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN 

Ex Parte Kleinsek 11/711,921 SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) DON A. KLEINSEK, PH.D. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J 

For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Expectation of success is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made. Life Techs., Inc. v. Clontech Labs., Inc. , 224 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Berger et al 10/637,339 HUGHES 102(e) Yee & Associates, P.C. EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Holmstrom et al 10/832,180 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ADVANTEDGE LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER STRIMBU, GREGORY J 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Jankoski et al 10/364,705 SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MAI, TRI M 

Ex Parte Wasylucha 10/872,256 SILVERBERG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE 

Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim. Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous). 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Warrell 10/738,867 GRIMES 103(a) DIEHL SERVILLA LLC EXAMINER GIBBS, TERRA C 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Mantle 10/523,857 SILVERBERG 103(a) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

purdue pharma,

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Marcjan et al 10/403,063 COURTENAY 103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lee 10/928,806 SCHEINER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER WHITEMAN, BRIAN A 

"In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention. See id. 

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05

CFMT,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Staton 10/912,427 FREDMAN 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER SIMS, JASON M 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Moll et al 10/797,354 FETTING 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG 

Ex Parte Gaddy et al 10/945,505 GRIMES 102(e) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. EXAMINER WHITE, EVERETT NMN 

Ex Parte Bennett et al 11/271,085 PATE III 103(a) HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Dalton 11/049,488 PATE III 103(a) CARDINAL LAW GROUP EXAMINER ANDERSON, MICHAEL J 

Ex Parte Genger et al 11/311,862 LEE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER FOREMAN, JONATHAN M 

A conclusion of obviousness requires an accounting for all of the limitations in a claim. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ritter et al 09/951,491 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER DESAI, RACHNA SINGH

schering, miller, CAE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/791,138 GREEN 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M 

In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the "‘natural result flowing from’" the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms. , 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112 

Ex Parte Beermann et al 10/497,173 PRATS 112(2)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC "

[B]readth is not to be equated with indefiniteness." In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). 

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Eckels et al 11/158,480 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SIEFKE, SAMUEL P 

However, the use of different terms in a claim indicates, absent evidence to the contrary, that different elements are required. Cf. CAE Screen Plates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GMBH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”) (citation omitted).

langer, brooktree

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Baldenius et al10/468,610 ADAMS 102(f) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Jiang et al 10/288,225 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Krenn 10/170,190 HOFF 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N

Ex Parte Garrec et al 10/491,057 SIU 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER MUSA, ABDELNABI O 

Ex Parte Park 09/941,837 HAIRSTON 103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. EXAMINER VAN HANDEL, MICHAEL P 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Kim et al 10/748,168 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN 

Ex Parte Maciocco et al 10/377,580 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER LEUNG, WAI LUN 2800 

Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Ho et al 11/040,493 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER WEST, JEFFREY R 

Ex Parte Ahne et al 10/883,426 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAM S 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Pasquale et al 10/436,743 CRAWFORD 112(1)/101/102(b)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER BROOKS, MATTHEW L

As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true.

In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis added). “To violate [35 U.S.C.] § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result.” Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915, 175 USPQ 172 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04

Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . 2107.01 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Matzdorf et al 11/116,165 COLAIANNI 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Rancien et al 10/312,009 KRIVAK 103(a) Oliff & Berridge, P.L.C. EXAMINER GOINS, DAVETTA WOODS 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Robson et al 10/635,156 KERINS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

chore-time,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Conrad et al 10/344,246 GRIMES 112(2)/103(a) ELI LILLY & COMPANY 

Ex Parte Schultz et al 10/022,138 GRIMES 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Balan et al 10/881,407 WARREN 102(e) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 

Ex Parte Bries et al 09/809,805 SMITH 103(a) 3M Innovative Properties Company 

Ex Parte Roba et al 09/986,622 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Collet et al 10/639,373 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte Chang et al 10/228,165 HOFF 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 

Ex Parte Lockridge et al 10/223,844 HOFF 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Choi et al 10/874,011 RUGGIERO 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Broach et al 10/751,349 FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 

Ex Parte Rusman et al 11/315,046 CRAWFORD 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Toyoshima 09/972,781 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Park 11/327,681 HAIRSTON 102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Mascavage et al 09/991,379 CRAWFORD 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP 

It is well-established that an invention may be held to have been obvious without a specific finding of a particular level of skill where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. See Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . 2141.03 

Ex Parte Rosenberg 11/024,620 LEE, Dissenting SCHAFER 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Janzig et al 10/731,699 PATE III obviousness-type double patenting/102(b) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.