Thursday June 10, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Peck et al 10/281,289 SPIEGEL 102(a)/102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER FORMAN, BETTY J

An obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps: (1) construction of the claims of the patent and the claim in the application to identify any differences, and (2) determination of whether the differences in subject matter between the claims render the claims patentably distinct. Accord Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, "a double patenting of the obviousness type rejection is analogous to [a failure to meet] the non-obviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103, except that the patent principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art." In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quotation marks omitted).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

Longi, In re, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Krakers et al 11/013,205 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER JOYNER, KEVIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Plumer et al 10/983,874 LORIN 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUSAN M. DONAHUE ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./FY EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sazy 10/655,571 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Eis et al 10/770,616 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Kerr et al 09/995,697 JEFFERY 102(e) BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Anne Kinsman EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

Ex Parte Thomas 10/192,609 EASTHOM 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J

Ex Parte Dettinger et al 09/871,929 JEFFERY 101/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M

Wednesday June 9, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Morishita et al 10/366,718 GREEN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER GIBBS, TERRA C

In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the matter are to be reweighed").

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Ex Parte Schrader 10/311,760 GREEN 103(a) WHITE & CASE LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gueret 10/779,725 SILVERBERG Concurring Opinion BAHR 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Vange et al 10/380,471 GREEN 103(a) JACOBSON HOLMAN PLLC EXAMINER LULIS, MICHAEL P

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Standing 10/970,165 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

Tuesday June 8, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gruen et al 10/745,533 HOMERE 102(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

Ex Parte Jahnke et al 10/054,544 BARRY 102(e) GUNNISON, McKAY & HODGSON, L.L.P. EXAMINER PANNALA, SATHYANARAYA R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Antinori 10/446,729 SILVERBERG 103(a) VINCENT L. RAMIK DILLER, RAMIK & WIGHT EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

Ex Parte Arnaud 11/601,681 McCARTHY 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ELDRED, JOHN W

Ex Parte Buck et al 10/215,343 MOHANTY 101/102(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

Ex Parte Preston 10/856,255McCARTHY 103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O’CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Mimnagh-Kelleher et al 10/544,202 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER STOUT, MICHAEL C

Ex Parte Murphy et al 10/474,977 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) FRANCIS A COOCH THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY EXAMINER CATTUNGAL, SANJAY

Monday June 7, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bondestam et al 10/383,291 PAK 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

Ex Parte Fuller et al 10/808,679 NAGUMO 103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

Ex Parte Williamson et al 11/483,878 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER ANGADI, MAKI A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Reisinger 10/797,838 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SCHIFF HARDIN LLP EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Frome 10/480,162 GRIMES 112(2)/103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC

“Although it is well settled that comparative test data showing an unexpected result will rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, the comparative testing must be between the claimed invention and the closest prior art.” In re Fenn, 639 F.2d 762, 765 (CCPA 1981) (emphasis added).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lim et al 10/696,879 KIMLIN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER PHAM, MINH CHAU THI

However, it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).

Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 2144.04

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

Dailey, In re, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

Ex Parte Tokai et al 10/386,715 OWENS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,001 6,919,122 LANE 103(a) Jason E. Pauls Foley & Lardner Mark D. Swanson Pauley, Peterson & Erickson EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C

“Not every competing product that arguably falls within the scope of a patent is evidence of copying. Otherwise every infringement suit would automatically confirm the nonobviousness of the patent. Rather, copying requires the replication of a specific product.” Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05

See Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 317 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding evidence of copying to be insufficient to show nonobviousness because the “copied” product was not the same as the claimed product and the effort by the “copier” to produce a different product was not extensive).

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . .716.03(b), 716.06, 2141.01(a)

Friday June 4, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Marmo 10/811,690 GAUDETTE 103(a) Klein, O’Neill & Singh, LLP EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Babb et al 10/041,405 BARRY 101/103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Butler et al 10/981,359 NAPPI 112(2)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER SOBUTKA, PHILIP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Emanuel et al 10/963,127 SILVERBERG 103(a) THOMAS A. GALLAGHER EXAMINER ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P

Ex Parte Kusterbeck 10/417,125 FETTING 103(a) KILE GOEKJIAN REED & MCMANUS EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Opie et al 10/444,773 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY LLP EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

Ex Parte Viswanathan 10/962,174 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER LAMPRECHT, JOEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Todd et al 11/046,043 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

See, e.g., Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (citations omitted) (“Lower court cases make
clear that courts have correlated review of ordinary administrative proceedings to appellate review of civil cases in this respect. . . . the party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.”) See also, In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), (discussing the role of harmless error in appeals from decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”)).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Valles Camps et al 09/948,601 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) JAMES C. WRAY EXAMINER MILLER, WILLIAM L

Appellants seek review as to whether the Examiner erred in not supplying a full translation of a foreign reference during prosecution of an application (Reply Br. 12; App. Br. 5-6). Appellants cite Ex parte Jones, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208-1209 (BPAI 2001) in support of their position. In Jones, our colleagues held that:

When an examiner cites and relies only on an abstract, the applicant may
wish to obtain a copy of the underlying document and submit a copy to the
examiner when responding to a rejection relying on an abstract. In the event a
reference is in a foreign language, if the applicant does not wish to expend
resources to obtain a translation, the applicant may wish to request the
examiner to supply a translation. If a translation is not supplied by the
examiner, the applicant may wish to consider seeking supervisory relief by way
of a petition (37 CFR § 1.181) to have the examiner directed to obtain and
supply a translation. Id. at 1208-1209 (Emphasis added)

We agree with our colleagues that this matter is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201) and is, thus, not within the jurisdiction of the Board. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, this issue can not be treated in this appeal.

Jones, Ex parte, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2001). . . . . . . . 706.02

Ex Parte Feliss et al 10/995,613 HORNER 112(1)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER MEYER, JACOB B

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

ex parte

2900 Designs
Ex parte FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. 90/007,640 D498,187 S SONG 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER ARONOVICH, ADIR

"[T]he teachings of prior art designs may be combined only when the designs are 'so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.'" In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed Cir. 1996) (citing In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450 (CCPA 1956).

Borden, In re, 90 F.3d 1570, 39 USPQ2d1524 (Fed. Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1504.03

Glavas, In re, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956) . . . . . . .. . . . . . .1504.02, 1504.03

Thursday June 3, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Easterling et al 11/459,562 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER HUANG, GIGI GEORGIANA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lauzon et al 10/458,452 SIU 102(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Schobben et al 10/548,242 NAPPI 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER ZUBAJLO, JENNIFER L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gesswein 10/394,630 STAICOVICI 112(2)/102(b) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Benedict 10/916,108 GREEN 103(a) HOWREY LLP-HN EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." [KSR] at 416. Moreover, an "[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious." In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).

Fout, In re, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). . . . . . . . . . . .2129, 2143.01, 2144.06

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

Ex Parte Campillo et al 11/218,295 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER ZHENG, LI

Consistent with Lilly and Amgen, in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002), it was held that a claimed DNA could be described without, necessarily, disclosing its structure. The court adopted the standard that the written description requirement can be met by “show[ing] that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics . . . i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics.” Id. at 964.

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

Ex Parte Shannon 11/179,813 LEBOVITZ 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Ex Parte Southern 10/772,467 PRATS 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

Wednesday June 2, 2010

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. and APPLIED MATERIALS ISRAEL, LTD. Appellant
5,982,921 90/007,577, 90/007,691, and 90/008,690 EASTHOM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Third Party Requester, 90/007,577 and 90/007691: Douglas G. Hodder MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third Party Requester, 90/008,690: Robert A. Saltzberg MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G

ariad, rowe, texas instruments

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Murphy et al 10989721 COLAIANNI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYDE, P.C. EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN 

Ex Parte Tsai et al 10382032 PAK 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L 

Ex Parte Maydan et al 10867591 COLAIANNI 103(a) MOSER IS LAW GROUP APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M 

Ex Parte Burns et al 11108274 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (CHEVRON PHILLIPS) EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K 

As stated in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,

the 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. . . . The term "possession," however, has never been very enlightening. It implies that as long as one can produce records documenting a written description of a claimed invention, one can show possession. But the hallmark of written description is disclosure. Thus, "possession as shown in the disclosure" is a more complete formulation. Yet whatever the specific articulation, the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. 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.

598 F. 3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Ex Parte Bernard et al 10873887 SMITH 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Mane et al 10654137 JEFFERY 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN 

Ex Parte Robinson et al 10633804 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, PAUL 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Nakaoka et al 09958885 MARTIN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Linzer 11122426 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOW, JEFFREY J 

Ex Parte Turetzky et al 10154138 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA 

Ex Parte Endoh et al 10239188 SAADAT 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AGUSTIN, PETER VINCENT 

Ex Parte Shiono 10882316 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HSU, JONI 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Lee et al 11033845 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY 

Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 10543051 KERINS 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E 

Ex Parte Tsukagoshi 10796394 HAIRSTON 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LAVARIAS, ARNEL C 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Joye et al 10867986 McCARTHY 112(1)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRATT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Hathaway 10636128 SIU 102(e) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER THERIAULT, STEVEN B 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Lubbers et al 10043924 BARRETT 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Adams et al 11191006 HAHN 101/102(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K 

Ex Parte Joshi et al 11251674 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Mutchler 10761185 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY 

REEXAMINATION 

inter parties

EXAMINER AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) SHIMANO, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ROLF DIETRICH Patent Owner and Appellant 95000008 6,428,113 LEBOVITZ 120 Priority/112(1)/103(a)/305 314(a) Enlarging the scope of the claims PURDUE LAW OFFICES THIRD PARTY REQUESTER David L. Tarnoof Global IP Counselors, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C 

When a claim term merely states a purpose, an intended use, or a result, the term may not be considered a limitation of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

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

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

Friday May 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bockholt et al 11572536 GREEN 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR
Ex Parte Link et al 10804938 WALSH 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Currier et al 10957745 SMITH 103(a) GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

Ex Parte Zenger et al 10356598 OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

Ex Parte Ward 10488848 NAGUMO 103(a) COOPER & DUNHAM EXAMINER WYSZOMIERSKI, GEORGE P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Jain et al 10648600 BLANKENSHIP 102(b) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER RADTKE, MARK A

Ex Parte Fishman 09871990 SIU 103(a) SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G

Ex Parte Kundu et al 10414591 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) PatentGC LLC EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL

Ex Parte Christensen et al 10300830 DIXON 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A

Ex Parte Lin et al 10008872 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GARLICK HARRISON & MARKISON EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

Ex Parte Aggarwal et al 10041182 HUGHES 103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP EXAMINER CHUONG, TRUC T

Ex Parte Janko et al 10355390 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/102(b) TEKTRONIX, INC. EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Sakiyama et al 10702811 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER LIU, LIN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Ingvarsson et al 10458112 BOALICK 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER WARREN, MATTHEW E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 10356207 LORIN 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, NANCY T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ionescu 10389606 BAHR 101/112(2)/103(a) PANCU MIHAI IONESCU EXAMINER MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Berndl et al 10296451 ADAMS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sidhwa 10131455 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) STMicroelectronics, Inc. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Finke-Anlauff et al 10792175 DANG 102(b) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER VU, KIEU D

Ex Parte Kraenzel et al 10926735 DANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Benny et al 09876090 DIXON 101/102(e)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ottofy 10705310 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) WEISS & MOY PC EXAMINER MCCLELLAN, JAMES S

venner,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Staton et al 10/912,661 ADAMS 112(2)/103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER SIMS, JASON M 

Ex Parte Okuda et al 11/508,261 GRIMES 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER NIEBAUER, RONALD T

Ex Parte Sagawa et al 10/344,534 FREDMAN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER BELYAVSKYI, MICHAIL A 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Moehlenbrock et al 10/661,848 ROBERTSON 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Baumann et al 10/902,590 DANG 102(b)/103(a) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Spio 10/412,361 HAIRSTON 103(a) GATES & COOPER, L.L.P. EXAMINER KHAN, MEHMOOD B 

Ex Parte Lee et al 10/403,864 HAIRSTON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Barr et al 10/714,386 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BHAT, ADITYA S 

Ex Parte Destain 11/322,801 OWENS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH 

Ex Parte Hrubowchak et al 11/036,656 HAIRSTON 102(b) Osram Sylvania Inc. EXAMINER GUHARAY, KARABI 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Thorn et al 10/169,418 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Shannon et al 10/877,231 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT 

In In re Venner, the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). 

Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10/481,227 NAGUMO 103(a) Flynn Thiel Boutell & Tanis EXAMINER DRODGE, JOSEPH W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Mustonen et al 10/717,600 HOFF 103(a)/101 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. EXAMINER PATEL, CHANDRAHAS B 

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

Ex Parte McEwan 10/275,742 MEDLEY Concurring LEE 102(b) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Hillmann et al 10/275,633 BAHR 112(1)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER DUNN, DARRIN D 

Ex Parte Nicastro 10/202,924 BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CARDINAL LAW GROUP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N 

Ex Parte Reinhardt 10/887,783 STAICOVICI 103(a) ALDON R. REINHARDT EXAMINER LU, JIPING 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte ANASCAPE, LTD. 90/008,373 6,102,802 SONG 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON Third Party Requester: MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL 

Ex parte CRYOVAC, INC. 90/006,430 6,287,613 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SEALED AIR CORPORATION EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED 

Ex parte JFE STEEL CORPORATION 90/008,756 6,740,174 DELMENDO 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D

multiform, altiris, langmyr, gottschalk,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Blume et al 10/790,658 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA 

Ex Parte Gall et al 11/337,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BLUMEL, BENJAMIN P 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Megerle et al 10/282,370 WARREN Concurring OWENS 103(a) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M 

Ex Parte Turi et al 10/938,079 KIMLIN 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Papanyan et al 10/601,353 SIU 102(e) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N 

Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd. , 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Howard et al 10/404,583 JEFFERY 103(a) AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R 

Ex Parte Curry et al 09/683,995 LUCAS 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL DRYJA EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Cutler et al 10/184,499 HOFF 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION C/O LYON & HARR, LLP EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR 

Ex Parte Pettinato 11/043,229 BARRETT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER HUYNH, CHUCK 

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

Ex Parte Walker et al 10/232,647 LORIN 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ghercioiu et al 10/283,548 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert, & Goetzel PC EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN 

“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/577,938 HAHN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD 

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

Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/061,354 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD 

Nominal recitations of structure in an otherwise ineligible method fail to make the method a statutory process. Ex parte Langmyr, 89 USPQ2d 1988, 1996 (BPAI 2008) (informative) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kennedy 10/662,599 STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 90/007,189 6,166,667 LEE 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

johns hopkins, engel, dystar, kollman,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Christakos et al 11/177,790 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT 

Ex Parte Liu 10/870,766 GREEN 103(a) DR. GEORGE DACAI LIU EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

Ex Parte Marcel et al 10/315,445 PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUNNER, BRIDGET E 

"The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention." Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Written Description Training Materials (http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written.pdf)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Iyengar 10/629,284 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T 

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

Ex Parte Moderegger et al 09/944,379 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/679,725 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Lochner et al 09/994,520 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, DUC Q 

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

Ex Parte Apps 11/099,423 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Clark et al 10/901,884 BAHR 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Ex parte FELLOWES, INC. 90/010,137 5,789,051 EASTHOM 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK, & MORTIMER Third Party Requester: SHEWCHUK IP SERVICES EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal - and even common-sensical - we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.

Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

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

inter partes 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.p.A.,Requester and Respondent v. CHEMI S.p.A., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,138 6,645,742 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI

In order for a showing of unexpected results to overcome the teachings of the prior art, the results presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48 (CCPA 1979).

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

pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

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

Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 

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

Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .

Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here 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. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

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