REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Johnson et al 09/950,985 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness type double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC.
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO
Optimization of a parameter not recognized as being result-effective is not prima facie obvious. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05
Ex Parte Lipps et al 10/242,175 WALSH 112(1) JOHN R. CASPERSON
Examiner Name:
AUDET, MAURY A
[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).
Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08
Ex Parte Siber 10/441,059 WALSH 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name:
STOICA, ELLY GERALD
“[K]nowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references to reach the particular claimed method.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Goldberg et al 11/783,882 TIMM 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
NUTTER, NATHAN M
While the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), the evidence need not be commensurate in scope with the prior art, they need only be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. The evidence must show that the unexpected results extend throughout the claimed subject matter but do not extend into the prior art teachings that fall outside of the claimed subject matter, i.e., that the claimed ranges are critical for obtaining the unexpected result. See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims."); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) ("Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for 'it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.") (quoting In re Tiffen, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)); and In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 958-59 (CCPA 1960) (To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, and applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range.).
Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145
Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05
Greenfield, In re, 40 F.2d 775, 5 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1214.01, 2682
Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03(a)
Hill, In re, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)
Ex Parte Golner et al 10/697,950 GARRIS 103(a) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Examiner Name:
BHAT, NINA NMN
Ex Parte Henry et al 10/495,118 GAUDETTE 103(a) DENNISON, SCHULTZ & MACDONALD
Examiner Name:
YANG, JIE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Silver et al 10/784,383 NAPPI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AT&T
Examiner Name:
BLOUNT, ERIC
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Carbone 11/054,770 LEE 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) W. THOMAS TIMMONS
Examiner Name:
HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
Ex Parte Stoll et al 11/162,545 LEE 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
Examiner Name:
ROSS, DANA
Ex Parte Strand et al 10/300,355 TIMM 112(1 )/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
Examiner Name:
HYLTON, ROBIN ANNETTE
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) art unit 3746
Ex parte TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION Patent Owner & Appellant 90/008,926 6,793,469 LEBOVITZ 102(a/e)/102(b)/103(a)/101 Counsel for the Patent Owner: QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC Counsel for the Third Party Requester: DAVID M. RUDDY, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
LEWIS, AARON J
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Baek et al
Ex Parte Bodin et al
Ex Parte Joos et al
Ex Parte Yuzawa
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Howell et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al
Ex Parte Allen et al
Ex Parte Bodin et al
Ex Parte Eldridge et al
Ex Parte Harris
Ex Parte Pardridge
Ex Parte ROBINSON et al
Ex Parte Spadini et al
Ex Parte Sreenivasan et al
Ex Parte Strand et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Merchant
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Thursday July 22, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Netzer et al 10/337,261 GREEN 103(a) HOXIE & ASSOCIATES LLC
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Friend et al 10/400,970 KRIVAK 103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Diamantopoulos 10/506,744 KERINS 102(a)/103(a) SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
Examiner Name:
HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cases et al 10/446,441 GREEN 112(1)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G
“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
For antibody claims, which are defined by their function rather than the structure of the antibody per se, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our reviewing court, has adopted the USPTO Written Description Guidelines:
[A]s persuasive authority for the proposition that a claim directed to “any antibody which is capable of binding to antigen X” would have sufficient support in a written description that disclosed “fully characterized antigens.” Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines, at 60, available at http://www.uspto.gov.web.menu.written.pdf (last visited Jan. 16, 2003) (emphasis added).
Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 69 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . .2163
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/008,352 and 90/010,035 6,712,387 SONG 112(1) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requestor: RICHARD K.DEMILLE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
Examiner Name:
KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PORT-A-COOL, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,567 6,223,548 SONG 103(a) JONES & SMITH, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: John M. Bradshaw, Esq. WOODARD, EMHARDT, NAUGHTON, MORIARTY & MCNETT
Examiner Name:
JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Green et al
REEXAMINATION
Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Akins et al
Ex Parte Hansen et al
Ex Parte Kubota et al
Ex Parte Martinez Ponce
Ex Parte Scherer et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Netzer et al 10/337,261 GREEN 103(a) HOXIE & ASSOCIATES LLC
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Friend et al 10/400,970 KRIVAK 103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Diamantopoulos 10/506,744 KERINS 102(a)/103(a) SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
Examiner Name:
HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cases et al 10/446,441 GREEN 112(1)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G
“[T]he determination of what is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, the predictability of the aspect at issue, and other considerations appropriate to the subject matter.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
For antibody claims, which are defined by their function rather than the structure of the antibody per se, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our reviewing court, has adopted the USPTO Written Description Guidelines:
[A]s persuasive authority for the proposition that a claim directed to “any antibody which is capable of binding to antigen X” would have sufficient support in a written description that disclosed “fully characterized antigens.” Synopsis of Application of Written Description Guidelines, at 60, available at http://www.uspto.gov.web.menu.written.pdf (last visited Jan. 16, 2003) (emphasis added).
Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 69 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . .2163
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/008,352 and 90/010,035 6,712,387 SONG 112(1) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requestor: RICHARD K.DEMILLE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
Examiner Name:
KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO MODIFY DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PORT-A-COOL, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,567 6,223,548 SONG 103(a) JONES & SMITH, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: John M. Bradshaw, Esq. WOODARD, EMHARDT, NAUGHTON, MORIARTY & MCNETT
Examiner Name:
JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Green et al
REEXAMINATION
Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Akins et al
Ex Parte Hansen et al
Ex Parte Kubota et al
Ex Parte Martinez Ponce
Ex Parte Scherer et al
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Wednesday July 21, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Delaney 11/165,564 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
SOROUSH, ALI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Imori et al 10/482,092 KIMLIN non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS
Examiner Name:
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barsness et al 11/082,925 COURTENAY 112(2)/103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Examiner Name:
RADTKE, MARK A
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoneya et al 10/070,908 BAUMEISTER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, HOAN C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hirose 10/860,762 PATE III 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
Examiner Name:
KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gardner et al 10/727,779 GRIMES 112(1)/102(e)/102(a)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC
Examiner Name:
BERTAGNA, ANGELA MARIE
Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lenk 10/887,438 COURTENAY 102(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE ASSOCIATES PC
Examiner Name:
PARK, ILWOO
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, "each claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim discloses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features." Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenics Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
REEXAMINATION
ex parte
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Charak, LLC,Appellant 90/009,162 6,537,976 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WAYNE S. BREYER DEMONT & BREYER, LLC
Examiner Name:
HUANG, EVELYN MEI
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Alkazemi
Ex Parte Bensussan et al
Ex Parte Brundage et al
Ex Parte Morooka et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Archie
Ex Parte Jalil et al
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel
REEXAMINATION
Ex parte BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Aquino et al
Ex Parte Babic et al
Ex Parte Clark et al
Ex Parte Crawford et al
Ex Parte FISHER et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Miller et al
RUHOFF.pdf
Ex Parte Seghatol et al
Ex Parte Takayama et al
Ex Parte Vishik et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Ayala et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Delaney 11/165,564 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
SOROUSH, ALI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Imori et al 10/482,092 KIMLIN non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS
Examiner Name:
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barsness et al 11/082,925 COURTENAY 112(2)/103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Examiner Name:
RADTKE, MARK A
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoneya et al 10/070,908 BAUMEISTER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, HOAN C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hirose 10/860,762 PATE III 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
Examiner Name:
KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gardner et al 10/727,779 GRIMES 112(1)/102(e)/102(a)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC
Examiner Name:
BERTAGNA, ANGELA MARIE
Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lenk 10/887,438 COURTENAY 102(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE ASSOCIATES PC
Examiner Name:
PARK, ILWOO
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, "each claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim discloses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features." Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenics Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
REEXAMINATION
ex parte
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Charak, LLC,Appellant 90/009,162 6,537,976 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WAYNE S. BREYER DEMONT & BREYER, LLC
Examiner Name:
HUANG, EVELYN MEI
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Alkazemi
Ex Parte Bensussan et al
Ex Parte Brundage et al
Ex Parte Morooka et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Archie
Ex Parte Jalil et al
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel
REEXAMINATION
Ex parte BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Aquino et al
Ex Parte Babic et al
Ex Parte Clark et al
Ex Parte Crawford et al
Ex Parte FISHER et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Miller et al
RUHOFF.pdf
Ex Parte Seghatol et al
Ex Parte Takayama et al
Ex Parte Vishik et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Ayala et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
abbott labs3
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Reguri et al 11/219,976 LEBOVITZ 102(b) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. EXAMINER MABRY, JOHN
There is no per se prohibition of patenting a “new form” of a compound. To the contrary, there are numerous cases in which a new form of a known compound was determined to be patentable. See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Jensen et al 10/838,533 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sayal et al 09/943,223 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DENG, ANNA CHEN
Ex Parte Phenix 10/667,816 DANG 101/103(a) MICHAEL B. JOHANNESEN, ESQ. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, P.C. EXAMINER RADTKE, MARK A
Though the Examiner finds that “[t]he claims are rejected as falling under the judicial exception of an abstract idea … not statutory within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101” (Ans. 3), “an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article” into a different state or thing. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Saunders et al 10/447,514 NAPPI 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JONES EXAMINER GE, YUZHEN
Ex Parte Ceshkovsky 10/190,382 HAHN 101/112(1) PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L
For the forgoing reasons we find a disclosed operative embodiment. We, therefore, will not sustain the rejection under § 101 of claims 1-60 because our reviewing court has stated “[t]o 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) (emphasis added).
Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . 2107.01
Ex Parte Frakes et al 10/865,084 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) THOMAS, KEYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, BRIAN Q
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chin et al 11/287,966 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peters 10/758,853 CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
Ex Parte Wylie 09/971,908 CRAWFORD 103(a) Philmore H. Colburn II Cantor Colburn LLP EXAMINER RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM
See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage; an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Weiland et al 10/620,732 SIU 102(b) NAVTEQ NORTH AMERICA, LLC EXAMINER TO, TUAN C
REEXAMINATION
inter partes
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
THE C.W. ZUMBIEL COMPANY, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC.1 Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,077 6,715,639 SONG 103(a) James F. Vaughan Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice cc Third Party Requester: KEITH R. HAUPT, ESQ. Wood Herron & Evans LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Baxter et al
Ex Parte Kamon et al
Ex Parte Kunkee et al
Ex Parte Taylor
Ex Parte Zelazo et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Rudelic
Ex Parte Xu et al
REEXAMINATION
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Distefano
Ex Parte Etzold
Ex Parte Jourdan et al
Ex Parte Keller et al
Ex Parte Kimbrell et al
Ex Parte Kloke et al
Ex Parte Pabla et al
Ex Parte Wagstaff
Ex Parte Yaeger
REHEARING
Ex Parte Van Der Vleuten et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Reguri et al 11/219,976 LEBOVITZ 102(b) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. EXAMINER MABRY, JOHN
There is no per se prohibition of patenting a “new form” of a compound. To the contrary, there are numerous cases in which a new form of a known compound was determined to be patentable. See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Jensen et al 10/838,533 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sayal et al 09/943,223 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DENG, ANNA CHEN
Ex Parte Phenix 10/667,816 DANG 101/103(a) MICHAEL B. JOHANNESEN, ESQ. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, P.C. EXAMINER RADTKE, MARK A
Though the Examiner finds that “[t]he claims are rejected as falling under the judicial exception of an abstract idea … not statutory within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101” (Ans. 3), “an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article” into a different state or thing. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Saunders et al 10/447,514 NAPPI 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JONES EXAMINER GE, YUZHEN
Ex Parte Ceshkovsky 10/190,382 HAHN 101/112(1) PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ORTIZ CRIADO, JORGE L
For the forgoing reasons we find a disclosed operative embodiment. We, therefore, will not sustain the rejection under § 101 of claims 1-60 because our reviewing court has stated “[t]o 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) (emphasis added).
Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . 2107.01
Ex Parte Frakes et al 10/865,084 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) THOMAS, KEYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, BRIAN Q
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chin et al 11/287,966 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peters 10/758,853 CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
Ex Parte Wylie 09/971,908 CRAWFORD 103(a) Philmore H. Colburn II Cantor Colburn LLP EXAMINER RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM
See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage; an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Weiland et al 10/620,732 SIU 102(b) NAVTEQ NORTH AMERICA, LLC EXAMINER TO, TUAN C
REEXAMINATION
inter partes
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
THE C.W. ZUMBIEL COMPANY, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC.1 Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,077 6,715,639 SONG 103(a) James F. Vaughan Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice cc Third Party Requester: KEITH R. HAUPT, ESQ. Wood Herron & Evans LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Baxter et al
Ex Parte Kamon et al
Ex Parte Kunkee et al
Ex Parte Taylor
Ex Parte Zelazo et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Rudelic
Ex Parte Xu et al
REEXAMINATION
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Distefano
Ex Parte Etzold
Ex Parte Jourdan et al
Ex Parte Keller et al
Ex Parte Kimbrell et al
Ex Parte Kloke et al
Ex Parte Pabla et al
Ex Parte Wagstaff
Ex Parte Yaeger
REHEARING
Ex Parte Van Der Vleuten et al
Monday, July 19, 2010
Monday July 19, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fixman et al 11/575,164 SPIEGEL 102(b)/112(2) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C.
Examiner Name:
CARLSON, KAREN C
Ex Parte Penner et al 10/938,888 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C.
Examiner Name:
SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D
Ex Parte Shi et al 10/132,542 WALSH 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A.
Examiner Name:
FUBARA, BLESSING M
Ex Parte Sorge et al 10/734,563 MILLS 112(1) AGILENT TECHOLOGIES INC
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blau 11/187,098 KERINS 112(1)/103(a) PHILIP KOENIG
Examiner Name:
ARK, DARREN W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Grafton 10/635,444 FREDMAN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
Examiner Name:
OLSON, ERIC
NEW
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Armbruster et al
Ex Parte Byrum et al
Ex Parte Gass et al
Ex Parte Liu et al
Ex Parte Sarkar
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fixman et al 11/575,164 SPIEGEL 102(b)/112(2) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C.
Examiner Name:
CARLSON, KAREN C
Ex Parte Penner et al 10/938,888 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C.
Examiner Name:
SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D
Ex Parte Shi et al 10/132,542 WALSH 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A.
Examiner Name:
FUBARA, BLESSING M
Ex Parte Sorge et al 10/734,563 MILLS 112(1) AGILENT TECHOLOGIES INC
Examiner Name:
HUTSON, RICHARD G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blau 11/187,098 KERINS 112(1)/103(a) PHILIP KOENIG
Examiner Name:
ARK, DARREN W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Grafton 10/635,444 FREDMAN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
Examiner Name:
OLSON, ERIC
NEW
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Armbruster et al
Ex Parte Byrum et al
Ex Parte Gass et al
Ex Parte Liu et al
Ex Parte Sarkar
Friday, July 16, 2010
Friday July 16, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wenger et al 10/490,565 PRATS 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Examiner Name:
FORD, ALLISON M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lin et al 10/981,926 KRATZ 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC-IBM
Examiner Name:
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Martin 10/754,070 C. THOMAS 112(1)/102(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
PHAM, HUNG Q
REEXAMINATION
ex parte
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte TEST.COM 90/007,997 6,513,042 TURNER 103(a) Cynthia S. Murphy RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR Jason Schultz, Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation
Examiner Name:
CHOI, WOO H
An Applicant’s declaration must clearly explain the evidence and exhibits, pointing out exactly what facts are established and relied on by applicant to show conception and reduction of the invention to a practical form:
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Crnkovich
Ex Parte Wenger et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Alexander et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Agazzi
Ex Parte Isenstein et al
Ex Parte Meythaler
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Sezan et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wenger et al 10/490,565 PRATS 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Examiner Name:
FORD, ALLISON M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lin et al 10/981,926 KRATZ 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC-IBM
Examiner Name:
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Martin 10/754,070 C. THOMAS 112(1)/102(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
PHAM, HUNG Q
REEXAMINATION
ex parte
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte TEST.COM 90/007,997 6,513,042 TURNER 103(a) Cynthia S. Murphy RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR Jason Schultz, Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation
Examiner Name:
CHOI, WOO H
An Applicant’s declaration must clearly explain the evidence and exhibits, pointing out exactly what facts are established and relied on by applicant to show conception and reduction of the invention to a practical form:
The affidavit or declaration and exhibits must clearly explain which facts or
data applicant is relying on to show completion of his or her invention prior to
the particular date. Vague and general statements in broad terms about what the
exhibits describe along with a general assertion that the exhibits describe a
reduction to practice “amounts essentially to mere pleading, unsupported by
proof or a showing of facts” and, thus, does not satisfy the requirements of 37
CFR 1.131(b).
MPEP § 715.07 (I) (quoting In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974)). See also In re Harry, 333 F.2d 920, 922 (CCPA 1964) (Where the affidavit “asserts that facts exist but does not tell what they are or when they occurred.”). A declaration exhibit need not support all claimed limitations; however, any missing limitation must supported by the declaration itself. MPEP § 715.07 (I) (citing Ex parte Ovshinsky, 10 USPQ2d 1075, 1077 (BPAI 1989)).
“[F]or the purpose of antedating [a] reference under Rule 131, it is sufficient that appellant has shown a reduction to practice of his basic invention, which showing will also suffice as to claims differing therefrom only in details which are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Spiller, 500 F.2d 1170, 1178 (CCPA 1974). The court subsequently clarified that Spiller “nowhere weakens the requirement, under Rule 131, of a factual showing of completion of the invention before the critical date.” In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d at 719.
Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
Harry, In re, 333 F.2d 920, 142 USPQ 164 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .715.07, 2138.06
Ovshinsky, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1075 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
Spiller, In re, 500 F.2d 1170, 182 USPQ 614 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .715.02, 715.03
While the Examiner may be correct regarding the requirements for 37 CFR § 1.131 as it applies to regular examination, this is not the case once a patent application has issued and then subsequently under reexamination, as is the case here. Specifically, rule 37 CFR § 1.131(a) states:
(a) When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim, the owner of the patent under reexamination, or the party qualified under §§ 1.42, 1.43, or 1.47 may submit an appropriate oath or declaration. . . .
37 C.F.R. § 1.131 (2009). (emphasis added).
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Crnkovich
Ex Parte Wenger et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Alexander et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Agazzi
Ex Parte Isenstein et al
Ex Parte Meythaler
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Sezan et al
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Thursday July 15, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Haalck et al 10/130,547 ADAMS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
Examiner Name:
DESAI, RITA J
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Goldberg et al 11/265,476 KRIVAK 101/103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
ENG, DAVID Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Byun et al 10/851,477 ADAMS 103(a) ALAN J. HOWARTH
Examiner Name:
HELM, CARALYNNE E
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sattler et al 10/952,321 McCARTHY 103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
Examiner Name:
NASSER, ROBERT L
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Barney et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Audeh et al
Ex Parte Beaudoin et al
Ex Parte Shick et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Siegel et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Haalck et al 10/130,547 ADAMS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
Examiner Name:
DESAI, RITA J
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Goldberg et al 11/265,476 KRIVAK 101/103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
ENG, DAVID Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Byun et al 10/851,477 ADAMS 103(a) ALAN J. HOWARTH
Examiner Name:
HELM, CARALYNNE E
A finding of obviousness would not obtain where “what was ‘obvious to try’ wasBayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising
field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to
the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.” O’Farrell,
853 F.2d at 903. This expresses the same idea as the KSR requirement that the
identified solutions be “predictable.” 550 U.S. at 421, 127 S. Ct. 1727; see
also Procter & Gamble, 566 F.3d at 996-97; Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359-60.
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sattler et al 10/952,321 McCARTHY 103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
Examiner Name:
NASSER, ROBERT L
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Barney et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Audeh et al
Ex Parte Beaudoin et al
Ex Parte Shick et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Siegel et al
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Wednesday July 14, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lloyd et al 10/937,223 GRIMES 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Examiner Name:
SHEN, BIN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Threewitt et al 10/520,367 GRIMES 103(a) SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.
Examiner Name:
SOROUSH, ALI
"Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties ... can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Chupp, In re, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . .716.01(d), 716.02(a), 2145
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cole 10/006,089 BARRETT 103(a) ROBERT C. KOWERT MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
Examiner Name:
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mascavage et al 10/298,152 MOHANTY 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
Examiner Name:
CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
ex parte
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte ON DEMAND MACHINE CORPORATION 90/007,589 5,465,213 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR APPELLANT: POLSTER, LIEDER, WOODRUFF & LUCCHESI, LC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DONALD J. QUIGG NOVAK, DRUCE, DELUCA & QUIGG, LLP
Examiner Name:
BANANKHAH, MAJID A
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bellmann et al
Ex Parte Dorsch et al
Ex Parte Farazi
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Arana
Ex Parte Bes et al
Ex Parte Gerken et al
Ex Parte Gladfelter
Ex Parte Groves
Ex Parte Howorth
Ex Parte Kurakata et al
Ex Parte Puri et al
Ex Parte Robinson et al
Ex Parte Tamburro et al
Ex Parte Vona et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Burger
Ex Parte Iizuka et al
Ex Parte Njo et al
VACATED
Ex Parte Birger et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lloyd et al 10/937,223 GRIMES 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Examiner Name:
SHEN, BIN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Threewitt et al 10/520,367 GRIMES 103(a) SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.
Examiner Name:
SOROUSH, ALI
"Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties ... can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Chupp, In re, 816 F.2d 643, 2 USPQ2d1437 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . .716.01(d), 716.02(a), 2145
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cole 10/006,089 BARRETT 103(a) ROBERT C. KOWERT MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
Examiner Name:
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mascavage et al 10/298,152 MOHANTY 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
Examiner Name:
CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
ex parte
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte ON DEMAND MACHINE CORPORATION 90/007,589 5,465,213 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR APPELLANT: POLSTER, LIEDER, WOODRUFF & LUCCHESI, LC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DONALD J. QUIGG NOVAK, DRUCE, DELUCA & QUIGG, LLP
Examiner Name:
BANANKHAH, MAJID A
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bellmann et al
Ex Parte Dorsch et al
Ex Parte Farazi
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Arana
Ex Parte Bes et al
Ex Parte Gerken et al
Ex Parte Gladfelter
Ex Parte Groves
Ex Parte Howorth
Ex Parte Kurakata et al
Ex Parte Puri et al
Ex Parte Robinson et al
Ex Parte Tamburro et al
Ex Parte Vona et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Burger
Ex Parte Iizuka et al
Ex Parte Njo et al
VACATED
Ex Parte Birger et al
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Tuesday July 13, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dedhar et al 09/998,250 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
HUI, SAN MING R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Hannington 10/596,659 HANLON 102(b) Avery Dennison Corporation Amanda Wittine
Examiner Name:
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
Ex Parte Huang et al 10/275,687 GAUDETTE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
HOFFMANN, JOHN M
Evidence of obviousness must come from the prior art, not the applicant’s own disclosure. In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
Ex Parte Myers 11/284,542 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE DIAL CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS
The rationale for determining the optimal parameters for prior art result-effective variables “flows from the ‘normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.’” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQd 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01, 2145
Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2144.05
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Krasnoiarov et al 10/077,423 DIXON 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP/ORACLE
Examiner Name:
TRAN, QUOC A
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/401,261 NAPPI 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Examiner Name:
REZA, MOHAMMAD W
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sauermann 10/919,749 NAPPI 102(b) KENYON & KENYON LLP
Examiner Name:
WIENER, ERIC A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Yodo 09/923,618 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
Examiner Name:
THEIN, MARIA TERESA T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Devos et al 10/124,181 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting WYETH LLC PATENT LAW GROUP
Examiner Name:
BARQADLE, YASIN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Becker et al 10/614,347 HUGHES 102(e) Hunton & Williams LLP / Symantec Corporation
Examiner Name:
PHAM, KHANH B
Ex Parte Grubbs et al 10/621,951 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
Examiner Name:
LU, CHARLES EDWARD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Haefner 11/019,497 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK
Examiner Name:
BERTRAM, ERIC D
Ex Parte Larsen 11/091,392 HORNER 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
Examiner Name:
BASICHAS, ALFRED
NEW
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Champnella et al
Ex Parte Dunham et al
Ex Parte Markel
REHEARING
Ex Parte Forman et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dedhar et al 09/998,250 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
HUI, SAN MING R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Hannington 10/596,659 HANLON 102(b) Avery Dennison Corporation Amanda Wittine
Examiner Name:
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
Ex Parte Huang et al 10/275,687 GAUDETTE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
HOFFMANN, JOHN M
Evidence of obviousness must come from the prior art, not the applicant’s own disclosure. In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
Ex Parte Myers 11/284,542 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE DIAL CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS
The rationale for determining the optimal parameters for prior art result-effective variables “flows from the ‘normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.’” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQd 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01, 2145
Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2144.05
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Krasnoiarov et al 10/077,423 DIXON 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP/ORACLE
Examiner Name:
TRAN, QUOC A
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/401,261 NAPPI 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Examiner Name:
REZA, MOHAMMAD W
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sauermann 10/919,749 NAPPI 102(b) KENYON & KENYON LLP
Examiner Name:
WIENER, ERIC A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Yodo 09/923,618 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
Examiner Name:
THEIN, MARIA TERESA T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Devos et al 10/124,181 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting WYETH LLC PATENT LAW GROUP
Examiner Name:
BARQADLE, YASIN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Becker et al 10/614,347 HUGHES 102(e) Hunton & Williams LLP / Symantec Corporation
Examiner Name:
PHAM, KHANH B
Ex Parte Grubbs et al 10/621,951 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
Examiner Name:
LU, CHARLES EDWARD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Haefner 11/019,497 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK
Examiner Name:
BERTRAM, ERIC D
Ex Parte Larsen 11/091,392 HORNER 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
Examiner Name:
BASICHAS, ALFRED
NEW
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Champnella et al
Ex Parte Dunham et al
Ex Parte Markel
REHEARING
Ex Parte Forman et al
Monday, July 12, 2010
Monday July 12, 2010
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gilfix et al 10/375,815 SIU 102(b)/103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP
Examiner Name:
WANG, RONGFA PHILIP
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hook et al 09/959,496 HOFF 103(a) Crowell & Moring LLP
Examiner Name:
HASHEM, LISA
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Helmstadter et al 11/370,690 HOFF 102(b) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Examiner Name:
YAN, REN LUO
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Zeigler 10/779,641 BAHR 103(a) WRB-IP LLP
Examiner Name:
CHILCOT, RICHARD E
Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Faye et al 10/534,108 LEE 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP
Examiner Name:
MCGRAW, TREVOR EDWIN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/085,764 BAHR 103(a) BASCH & NICKERSON LLP
Examiner Name:
UNDERWOOD, DONALD W
REEXAMINATION
inter partes
EXAMINER REVERSED; AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
LACKS INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. HAYES LEMMERZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,018 6,386,642 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Remy J. VanOphem VanOphem & VanOphem, P.C.
Examiner Name:
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Geisler
Ex Parte Keohane et al
Ex Parte Weiner
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Calvignac et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Berg et al
Ex Parte Carter et al
Ex Parte Dettinger et al
Ex Parte Kane et al
Ex Parte Karaila
Ex Parte Kassan
Ex Parte Kim et al
Ex Parte Paul et al
Ex Parte Robertson et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Eaton et al
Ex Parte Eckl
Ex Parte Koukol et al
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gilfix et al 10/375,815 SIU 102(b)/103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP
Examiner Name:
WANG, RONGFA PHILIP
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hook et al 09/959,496 HOFF 103(a) Crowell & Moring LLP
Examiner Name:
HASHEM, LISA
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Helmstadter et al 11/370,690 HOFF 102(b) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Examiner Name:
YAN, REN LUO
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Zeigler 10/779,641 BAHR 103(a) WRB-IP LLP
Examiner Name:
CHILCOT, RICHARD E
Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Faye et al 10/534,108 LEE 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP
Examiner Name:
MCGRAW, TREVOR EDWIN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/085,764 BAHR 103(a) BASCH & NICKERSON LLP
Examiner Name:
UNDERWOOD, DONALD W
REEXAMINATION
inter partes
EXAMINER REVERSED; AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
LACKS INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. HAYES LEMMERZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,018 6,386,642 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Remy J. VanOphem VanOphem & VanOphem, P.C.
Examiner Name:
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Geisler
Ex Parte Keohane et al
Ex Parte Weiner
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Calvignac et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Berg et al
Ex Parte Carter et al
Ex Parte Dettinger et al
Ex Parte Kane et al
Ex Parte Karaila
Ex Parte Kassan
Ex Parte Kim et al
Ex Parte Paul et al
Ex Parte Robertson et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Eaton et al
Ex Parte Eckl
Ex Parte Koukol et al
Friday, July 9, 2010
Friday July 9, 2010
VACATED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Proudler 10/643,306 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name:
DADA, BEEMNET W
NEW REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Statutory Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. § 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. Moreover, our reviewing court has stated that “[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This latter case held that claims directed to a “paradigm” are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as representing an abstract idea. Thus, a “signal” cannot be patentable subject matter because it is not within any of the four categories. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357. Laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185. A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, "Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment." Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). The unpatentability of abstract ideas was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (June 28, 2010).
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Miller 10/318,659 LEBOVITZ 103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
Examiner Name:
GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Burke et al
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Proudler 10/643,306 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name:
DADA, BEEMNET W
NEW REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Statutory Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. § 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. Moreover, our reviewing court has stated that “[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This latter case held that claims directed to a “paradigm” are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as representing an abstract idea. Thus, a “signal” cannot be patentable subject matter because it is not within any of the four categories. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357. Laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185. A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, "Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment." Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). The unpatentability of abstract ideas was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (June 28, 2010).
Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01
Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Miller 10/318,659 LEBOVITZ 103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
Examiner Name:
GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kuramochi et al 10/976,779 HANLON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
Examiner Name:
FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Examiner Name:
FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Hermentin et al 10/682,199 GRIMES 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, BAO THUY L
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, BAO THUY L
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/009,380 KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
Examiner Name:
EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/009,380 KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP
Examiner Name:
EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Boubez et al 09/758,112 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
HAMILTON, LALITA M
Examiner Name:
HAMILTON, LALITA M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Burke et al
AFFIRMED
REHEARING
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Thursday July 8, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Anderson et al 11/538,608 GRIMES 112(1) HOWREY LLP-HN
Examiner Name:
LI, QIAN JANICE
“There is nothing in the patent statute . . . which gives the Patent Office the right or the duty to require an applicant to prove that compounds or other materials which he is claiming, and which he has stated are useful for ‘pharmaceutical applications,’ are safe, effective, and reliable for use with humans.” In re Krimmel, 292 F.2d 948, 954 (CCPA 1961).
Krimmel, In re, 292 F.2d 948, 130 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03
Ex Parte Smith et al 10/745,308 MILLS 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
Examiner Name:
BLANCHARD, DAVID J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Poltorak 10/760,738 DANG 103(a) ANATOLY S. WEISER
Examiner Name:
WASSUM, LUKE S
Ex Parte Tuli 10/308,237 JEFFERY 112(2)/103(a) James C. Scheller, Jr.Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor, & Zafman LLP
Examiner Name:
KE, PENG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Carbone et al 11/100,332 HORNER 103(a) LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
Examiner Name:
BASICHAS, ALFRED
Ex Parte Hagele 11/001,254 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) BRADLEY P. HEISLER HEISLER & ASSOCIATES
Examiner Name:
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
Ex Parte De Laforcade 10/840,295 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
Examiner Name:
STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Ex Parte Sternby 10/990,967 SILVERBERG 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
MARCETICH, ADAM M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Wiese 10/044,583 JEFFERY 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
Examiner Name:
HAILU, TADESSE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Murphy 10/776,848 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WOODCOCK WASHBURN, LLP
Examiner Name:
HURLEY, SHAUN R
Ex Parte Wilday et al 10/909,056 SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C.
Examiner Name:
COBURN, CORBETT B
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Carter et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Adams
Ex Parte Bodner et al
Ex Parte Chou et al
Ex Parte Kessler et al
Ex Parte Nanno et al
Ex Parte Ohi et al
Ex Parte Pinto et al
Ex Parte Protic et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Anderson et al 11/538,608 GRIMES 112(1) HOWREY LLP-HN
Examiner Name:
LI, QIAN JANICE
“There is nothing in the patent statute . . . which gives the Patent Office the right or the duty to require an applicant to prove that compounds or other materials which he is claiming, and which he has stated are useful for ‘pharmaceutical applications,’ are safe, effective, and reliable for use with humans.” In re Krimmel, 292 F.2d 948, 954 (CCPA 1961).
Krimmel, In re, 292 F.2d 948, 130 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03
Ex Parte Smith et al 10/745,308 MILLS 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
Examiner Name:
BLANCHARD, DAVID J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Poltorak 10/760,738 DANG 103(a) ANATOLY S. WEISER
Examiner Name:
WASSUM, LUKE S
Ex Parte Tuli 10/308,237 JEFFERY 112(2)/103(a) James C. Scheller, Jr.Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor, & Zafman LLP
Examiner Name:
KE, PENG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Carbone et al 11/100,332 HORNER 103(a) LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
Examiner Name:
BASICHAS, ALFRED
Ex Parte Hagele 11/001,254 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) BRADLEY P. HEISLER HEISLER & ASSOCIATES
Examiner Name:
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
Ex Parte De Laforcade 10/840,295 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
Examiner Name:
STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Ex Parte Sternby 10/990,967 SILVERBERG 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
MARCETICH, ADAM M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Wiese 10/044,583 JEFFERY 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
Examiner Name:
HAILU, TADESSE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Murphy 10/776,848 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WOODCOCK WASHBURN, LLP
Examiner Name:
HURLEY, SHAUN R
Ex Parte Wilday et al 10/909,056 SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C.
Examiner Name:
COBURN, CORBETT B
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Carter et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Adams
Ex Parte Bodner et al
Ex Parte Chou et al
Ex Parte Kessler et al
Ex Parte Nanno et al
Ex Parte Ohi et al
Ex Parte Pinto et al
Ex Parte Protic et al
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Wednesday July 7, 2010
REVERSED
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Katayama 11/045,343 MARTIN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER GUPTA, PARUL H
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Maschke 10/804,707 STAICOVICI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER CHAO, ELMER M
Ex Parte Offermann 10/149,307 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER MATHEW, FENN C
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Zurlo et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Brock-Fisher et al
Ex Parte Ethelfeld
Ex Parte Takamasa et al
Ex Parte Underhill et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Loibl
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Katayama 11/045,343 MARTIN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER GUPTA, PARUL H
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Maschke 10/804,707 STAICOVICI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER CHAO, ELMER M
Ex Parte Offermann 10/149,307 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER MATHEW, FENN C
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Zurlo et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Brock-Fisher et al
Ex Parte Ethelfeld
Ex Parte Takamasa et al
Ex Parte Underhill et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Loibl
Monday, July 5, 2010
Monday July 5, 2010
REVERSED
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Budde et al 10/276,071 RUGGIERO 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER HAN, QI
Ex Parte Hiddink et al 10/745,882 SAADAT 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
Ex Parte Saxena et al 11/014,301 HAIRSTON 103(a) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR, L.L.C. INTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Zheng 10/409,089 NAPPI 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005), aff’d, slip op. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 2006).
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
NEW
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Choo et al
Ex Parte Dettinger et al
Ex Parte Kostrikis
Ex Parte Kurimura et al
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Budde et al 10/276,071 RUGGIERO 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER HAN, QI
Ex Parte Hiddink et al 10/745,882 SAADAT 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
Ex Parte Saxena et al 11/014,301 HAIRSTON 103(a) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR, L.L.C. INTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Zheng 10/409,089 NAPPI 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005), aff’d, slip op. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 2006).
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
NEW
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Choo et al
Ex Parte Dettinger et al
Ex Parte Kostrikis
Ex Parte Kurimura et al
Friday, July 2, 2010
Friday July 2, 2010
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kline 11/259,681 TIMM 103(a) AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION EXAMINER CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Soliman 10/387,711 BARRY 103(a) ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T
"Silence implies assent." Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 572 (1985).
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
ex parte
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C. 90/008097 6,208,804 EASTHOM 103(a)/102(b) MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP Third Party Requester: Babak Redjaian IRELL & MANELLA LLP EXAMINER FERRIS III, FRED O
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
inter partes
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
TIVO, INC. Respondent v. ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000173 6,529,685 EASTHOM 103(a) MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP Third Party Requester: Ben Yorks IRELL & MANELLA LLP EXAMINER FERRIS III, FRED O
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Sharma et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Coggan et al
Ex Parte Nagy
Ex Parte Newman
Ex Parte Ogura et al
Ex Parte Tosey et al
Ex Parte Williamson et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Boyd
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kline 11/259,681 TIMM 103(a) AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION EXAMINER CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Soliman 10/387,711 BARRY 103(a) ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T
"Silence implies assent." Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 572 (1985).
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
ex parte
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C. 90/008097 6,208,804 EASTHOM 103(a)/102(b) MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP Third Party Requester: Babak Redjaian IRELL & MANELLA LLP EXAMINER FERRIS III, FRED O
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
inter partes
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
TIVO, INC. Respondent v. ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000173 6,529,685 EASTHOM 103(a) MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP Third Party Requester: Ben Yorks IRELL & MANELLA LLP EXAMINER FERRIS III, FRED O
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Sharma et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Coggan et al
Ex Parte Nagy
Ex Parte Newman
Ex Parte Ogura et al
Ex Parte Tosey et al
Ex Parte Williamson et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Boyd
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)