Friday August 6, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Zimmerman et al 11/485,945 ADAMS 103(a) BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE Examiner Name: SOROUSH, LAYLA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Porter et al 10/429,533 LORIN 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG Examiner Name: ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Alexander et al 10/835,482 COURTENAY 101/102(b) IBM CORP. (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC Examiner Name: RIAD, AMINE

Ex Parte Day et al 10/860,403 BARRY 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC Examiner Name: GOFMAN, ALEX N

"The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In determining obviousness, furthermore, a reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). Regarding the prior art as a whole, "'[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed . . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . .707.07(f), 716.02, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2144.09, 2145

Wiggins, In re, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973) . . . . .2121.02, 2131.04, 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

Ex Parte Lora et al 10/784,605 COURTENAY 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION IPLAW SHCB/40-3 Examiner Name: SAEED, USMAAN

Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).

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

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Lancaster et al 11/473,391 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. Examiner Name: BARBEE, MANUEL L
The material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) (“Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sachs 10/967,795 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Examiner Name: BASTIANELLI, JOHN

REEXAMINATION

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1308
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant 90/006,832 5,198,124 DELMENDO 305 FOR PATENT OWNER: MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HUGHES LAW FIRM, PLLC Examiner Name: DIAMOND, ALAN D

Cf. Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 36357 (June 25, 2010) (delegating Director’s authority to review issues related to an examiner’s determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who may further delegate such authority to a panel of administrative patent judges, and explaining that petitions to vacate an ex parte reexamination order as ultra vires are not decided by the Board).

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1308
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant 90/006,844 5,314,630 DELMENDO 305
FOR PATENT OWNER: MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HUGHES LAW FIRM, PLLC Examiner Name: DIAMOND, ALAN D

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Presley
Ex Parte Seaman et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Eo et al
Ex Parte Konya et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Balogh et al
Ex Parte Fuchs et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Poltorak

Thursday August 5, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Burger et al 11/008,413 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) RICHARD L. MAYER, ESQ. KENYON & KENYON Examiner Name: KACKAR, RAM N

If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 1999).

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Skvorc 10/498,188 McCARTHY 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP Examiner Name: PARSLEY, DAVID J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Morimoto 10/134,261 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROBERT C. KOWERT CONLEY, ROSE, & TAYON, P.C. Examiner Name: THEIN, MARIA TERESA T

Some cases state the standard as “the broadest reasonable interpretation,” see, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993), others include the qualifier “consistent with the specification” or similar language, see, e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “Since it would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretive guidance afforded by the applicant's written description, either phrasing connotes the same notion: as an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Giving claim 21 the broadest reasonable construction, we find that claim 21 encompasses forms of the computer program code being embodied on transitory propagating signals per se. A signal does not fit within at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories under 35 U.S.C. §101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Van Geuns, In re, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . .707.07(f), 2145

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Akizuki et al 11/011,204 LEE, dissenting in part TORZON 101 SUGHRUE Examiner Name: CHANG, RICK KILTAE

Mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable eligible under §101. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Mental processes are not patentable even if they have a practical application. In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d at 979.

A claim reciting insignificant post solution activity does not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978).

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

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Sugiura et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Ramirez et al

REEXAMINATION

REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC, Requester and Cross-Appellant, v. HABASIT BELTING, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant.

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Fischer et al
Ex Parte Heuer et al
Ex Parte Schlesiger et al
Ex Parte Shim et al
Ex Parte Shimo

REHEARING

Ex Parte MacInnis et al

Wednesday August 4, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Millan et al 10/426,005 FREDMAN 103(a) CATALYST LAW GROUP, APC Examiner Name: BETTON, TIMOTHY E

“[A] preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble is not limiting, however, “‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.”’ Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

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

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

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kurek et al 11/124,484 STAICOVICI 103(a) AVON PRODUCTS, INC. Examiner Name: STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING

Ex Parte Riggs et al 11/127,534 STAICOVICI 102(b) EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC Examiner Name: MOSSER, ROBERT E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Mariner et al 11/549,968 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) DILWOTH & BARRESE, LLP Examiner Name: CHANDRA, SATISH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Rannow et al 10/835,506 NAPPI 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES

NEW

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Benson et al
Ex Parte Bisgaard-Bohr et al
Ex Parte Chatfield
Ex Parte David et al
Ex Parte Findikli et al
Ex Parte Gochanour
Ex Parte Joschek et al
Ex Parte Leban et al
Ex Parte Lorenz et al
Ex Parte Verma

REHEARING

Ex Parte Downs
Ex Parte Downs et al
Ex Parte Downs et al

Tuesday August 3, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Savio et al 10/529,923 FREDMAN 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP Examiner Name: HISSONG, BRUCE D

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Li 10/817,660 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. Examiner Name: THOMAS, MIA M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kanflod et al 10/539,148 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Mark P. Stone Examiner Name: MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

When a structure already known in the prior art is altered by the substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination is obvious when it does no more than yield a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

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

REEXAMINATION

3992 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2882
Orient Semiconductor Electronics, Ltd. Requester v. Kingpak Technology Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 95/000,126 6,441,496 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) cc: PATENT OWNER: SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: BENJAMIN J. HAUPTMAN LOWE HAUPTMAN & BERNER, LLP Examiner Name: KIELIN, ERIK J

In this regard, “claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Okuzawa, In re, 537 F.2d 545, 190 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)

3991 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1641
SINTERFIRE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of DELTA FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,207 6,536,352 DELMENDO 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) cc: For Patent Owner: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. For Third Party Requester: LOUIS M. TROILO FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Examiner Name: JOHNSON, JERRY D

For a claim in a later filed application to be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date of a previously filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the previously filed application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “This requires the disclosure in the earlier application to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors possessed the later-claimed subject matter when they filed the earlier application.” Id. at 1351.

Curtis, In re, 354 F.3d 1347, 69 USPQ2d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . .. . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Gellman et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Harris et al
Ex Parte Sansone

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Edwards
Ex Parte Faasse et al
Ex Parte Goodman et al
Ex Parte Hayden
Ex Parte Thurlimann

Monday August 2, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte DeHamer et al 10/677,000 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/102(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: VO, TED T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chiu et al 11/229,188 HOFF 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
Examiner Name:
WRIGHT, TUCKER J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Goclowski 10/722,662 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAMBERT & ASSOCIATES
Examiner Name:
MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Doaga et al 10/767,407 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY
Examiner Name:
MOSSER, ROBERT E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ludwig et al 10/874,027 WARREN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Examiner Name:
WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Wilkerson 11/034,659 HAIRSTON 103(a) MEHRMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
Examiner Name:
TSIDULKO, MARK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte West 11/487,456 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) WILEY REIN LLP
Examiner Name:
MILLER, WILLIAM L

See Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (absent a showing of long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (the mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem).

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

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2107.01, 2164.03, 2164.01(a), 2164.04, 2164.05(a), 2164.06(b), 2164.08

See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (evidence related solely to the number of units sold without providing any indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in the relevant market provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any).

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

See Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Cntrls. Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 317 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (alleged copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other manufacturer has not expended great effort to develop its own solution); Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., a Div. of DEC Int’l, Inc., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of copying found particularly persuasive where copyist had itself attempted for a substantial length of time to design a similar device, and failed). Further, a showing of copying requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

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

Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.06

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Crawley et al 10/931,025 BARRETT 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, TU MINH

Ex Parte Hixon et al 10/718,852 PATE III 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC
Examiner Name:
CHOI, STEPHEN

Evidence of number of units sold, volumes of dollar sales, or proof of existing market share, quite simply does not indicate anything with regard to the reasons for commercial success. See, e.g., Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (number of units sold and profit per unit not enough); or Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of dollar sales alone insufficient); or Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (number of units sold not enough). Such evidence must be placed in perspective by demonstrating that the subject invention displaces prior art devices or surpasses the volumes sales of prior art devices. See Vandenburg v. Dairy Equip., 740 F.2d at 1567.

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.06

Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art-recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. In particular, the evidence must show that the need was a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depend on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Gershon, 372 F.2d at 538. Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757,768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[Olnce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved.") Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA 1971). "[Llong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Cornrn'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Gershon, In re, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(c), 716.04

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . 716.04

Cavanagh, In re, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(d), 716.04

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

Ex Parte Passke et al 11/476,607 PATE III 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
Examiner Name:
KAVANAUGH, JOHN T

VACATED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Elkins et al 10/853,732 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name:
KIM, EUNHEE

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, “[a]bstract 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 reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (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

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN PART and REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1722
Ex parte COLORLAB COSMETICS, INC., Appellant 90/008,988 6,402,120 DELMENDO 112(1)/305/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOSEPH P. MEHRLE SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
Examiner Name:
BRUMBACK, BRENDA G

A “claim is enlarged if it includes within its scope any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

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

DENIED-IN-PART; GRANTED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte HARRY FISCH, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,024 6,391,920
SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner Ira J. Schaefer HOGAN & HARTSON LLP Third Party Requester David W. Clough, Ph.D. HOWREY LLP
Examiner Name:
PONNALURI, PADMASHRI

Lack of novelty is the ultimate of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2101
Ex parte THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEDIA GROUP, LTD. 90/007,578 4,925,294 EASTHOM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) UNIPAT.ORG Third Party Requestor: White & Case, LLP

See, e.g., Techradium, Inc. Blackboard Connect Inc., 2009 WL 1152985 *4 n. 5 (E.D. Tex. 2009)(“The Court agrees with Blackboard that Wikipedia disclaims any validity of the content listed on its website, and is therefore not a reliable source of technical information.”)

But see, U.S. v. Crooker, 608 F.3d 94, 95 n.1 (1st Cir. 2010) (using Wikipedia as source for definition); Lantz v. C.I.R., 607 F.3d 470, 482-83 (7th Cir. 2010) (Wikipedia as source for longest human lifespan).

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Foth et al
Ex Parte Schydlowsky

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Crawley et al
Ex Parte Geiger
Ex Parte Krebs

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Anderson et al
Ex Parte Barelmann et al
Ex Parte Britz et al
Ex Parte Chang et al
Ex Parte Christensen et al
Ex Parte Clementz et al
Ex Parte Davis
Ex Parte Downs
Ex Parte Ferguson
Ex Parte Finkelshtain et al
Ex Parte Hsu et al
Ex Parte Jenkins et al
Ex Parte Lam et al
Ex Parte Lemaire et al
Ex Parte Martinez
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al
Ex Parte Otis et al
Ex Parte Vienneau et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Lincir
Ex Parte Putnam et al

Friday July 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bennett et al 11/115,776 GREEN 103(a) NOVARTIS
Examiner Name:
HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA

Ex Parte Kincaid 10/184,501 PRATS Opinion dissenting FREDMAN 102(b) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Examiner Name:
DEJONG, ERIC S

Ex Parte Taylor 11/184,495 ADAMS 103(a) THE FIRM OF HUESCHEN AND SAGE
Examiner Name:
FORD, VANESSA L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Veiner et al 10/794,702 COLAIANNI 102(b) BECKMAN COULTER, INC., MITCHELL E. ALTER
Examiner Name:
WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/206,728 BAHR 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
SANDERS, HOWARD J

Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/206,729 BAHR 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
SANDERS, HOWARD J

Ex Parte Lambright 10/612,254 McCARTHY 102(b) BUTZEL LONG
Examiner Name:
ADAMS, GREGORY W

Ex Parte Ligard 10/980,414 BARRETT 102(b) GABLE & GOTWALS
Examiner Name:
HAYES, BRET C

Ex Parte Parsons 11/275,886 BAHR 103(a) TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
Examiner Name:
KING, ANITA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gudmunsson et al 10/487,968 OWENS 112(1) GLAXOSMITHKLINE
Examiner Name:
DESAI, RITA J

Ex Parte Mutter et al 11/655,895 GRIMES 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SANZO, LLC
Examiner Name:
NATARAJAN, MEERA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/827,494 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Examiner Name:
HUSON, MONICA ANNE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Swartz et al 10/760,099 HOMERE 102(e) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
Examiner Name:
ALAM, SHAHID AL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dang et al 09/995,294 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name:
GORT, ELAINE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dinsmoor 10/835,424 BAHR 103(a) Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP
Examiner Name:
TOWA, RENE T

Moreover, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment, and thus could utilize the existing analog structure of Hines when incorporating a memory to store data as suggested in Yokoi. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

...

Regarding 4), it is important to note that in any combination, benefits gained must be balanced with benefits lost. As stated in Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006):

[O]bviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and there is no rule that a single reference that teaches away will mandate a finding of nonobviousness. Likewise, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. See [Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)] ("The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another."). Where the prior art contains "apparently conflicting" teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered "for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill.... consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Thus, while a benefit of Hines' current configuration is real-time data, this does not preclude anyone from modifying Hines to have non-real-time data. For example, some physiological characteristics may not change every 100-500 ms. See Hines, col. 4, ll. 58-61. The obvious tradeoff is data update frequency, but if the characteristic does not change quickly, or it is not as important to have real-time updates, then the benefit of saving power may outweigh a desire to have several updates a second. Appellant has not demonstrated that the tradeoffs involved with modifying Hines to store data and transmit less often to save battery power would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from considering the combination.

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chong et al
Ex Parte Donoho

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Breidenbach et al
Ex Parte Dang et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Baxter
Ex Parte Carlson et al
Ex Parte Elkind
Ex Parte Hackler et al
Ex Parte Hagerty et al
Ex Parte Hatalkar
Ex Parte Hofmann et al
Ex Parte Iino et al
Ex Parte Johnson
Ex Parte Looman et al
Ex Parte Love
Ex Parte Pai et al
Ex Parte Da Palma et al
Ex Parte Prochazka et al
Ex Parte Schmitz et al
Ex Parte Vishnupad et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Heiman
Ex Parte Loeb

Thursday July 29, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Caussette et al 10/499,663 SPIEGEL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
ARIANI, KADE

The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).

Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). . . . . . 706.02(j), 706.02(m), 716.01(a), 804, 1504.03, 1504.06, 2106, 2141, 2144.08, 2258

Ex Parte Sinclair 11/031,534 SCHEINER 112(1)/103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK
Examiner Name:
CARTER, KENDRA D

“Title 35 does not require that a patent disclosure enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims to method of “restoring hair growth” encompassed achieving full head of hair but did not require it).

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

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . 2111, 2164.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Chen et al 10/397,490 GARRIS 112(1)/112(2)/102(b) CORNING INCORPORATED
Examiner Name:
HOFFMANN, JOHN M

Ex Parte Iwasa et al 11/166,253 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

Ex Parte Yoshida et al 10/873,620 HASTINGS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ollivier et al 11/042,797 O’NEILL 103(a) ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUFCLIFFE LLP
Examiner Name:
HELLER, TAMMIE K

Ex Parte Andersson et al 10/673,689 O’NEILL 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
PATEL, NIHIR B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cragun et al 10/731,080 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
LUDWIG, MATTHEW J

Ex Parte Schwarzbauer et al 10/676,227 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) KOKKA & BACKUS, PC
Examiner Name:
RUTLEDGE, AMELIA L

“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Borelli et al 09/992,379 FISCHETTI 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
Examiner Name:
BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3651
REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC Requester and Cross-Appellant v. HABASIT BELTING, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,072 6,523,680 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Quarles & Brady LLP
Examiner Name:
FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chiba et al
Ex Parte MENDOZA
Ex Parte Pawluczyk et al
Ex Parte De Rigal et al
Ex Parte Yendler et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Bryant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brabec
Ex Parte Callahan et al
Ex Parte Chen et al
Ex Parte Choo et al
Ex Parte Colpas et al
Ex Parte Dai et al
Ex Parte Dettinger et al
Ex Parte Leas et al
Ex Parte Lortz et al
Ex Parte McDysan
Ex Parte Moore et al
Ex Parte Nitzan et al
Ex Parte Ranganathan
Ex Parte Yada et al
Ex Parte Zeller

REHEARING

Ex Parte Daneshvar
Ex Parte Harris et al
Ex Parte Wendling et al
Ex Parte Zeller

Wednesday July 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Scott et al 11/440,746 GRIMES 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
Examiner Name:
HADDAD, MAHER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thompson-Colon et al 11/106,937 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC
Examiner Name:
HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

"Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach." In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretative guidance afforded by applicant’s written description.").

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . 2111, 2164.04

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Ex Parte Geisler et al 10/639,480 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
Examiner Name:
ALEXANDER, LYLE

Ex Parte Michl et al 10/571,699 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
REDDY, KARUNA P

Ex Parte Minamihaba et al 11/340,494 TIMM 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Examiner Name:
ANGADI, MAKI A

Ex Parte Rapier et al 10/706,645 TIMM 103(a) CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
Examiner Name:
WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chang 10/832,757 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) Haynes and Boone, LLP
Examiner Name:
LE, JESSICA N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/518,907 SAADAT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner Name:
FIGUEROA, FELIX O

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Vendetti 11/250,699 BAHR 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
Examiner Name:
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Frey et al 11/021,954 O’NEILL 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP
Examiner Name:
HYLTON, ROBIN ANNETTE

Ex Parte Sanchez et al 10/706,481 KERINS 103(a) DARRELL F. MARQUETTE
Examiner Name:
HUNTER, ALVIN A

Ex Parte Weber et al 10/411,558 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC
Examiner Name:
HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

When an explicit limitation in a claim is not present in the written description, it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the description requires that limitation. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 47USPQ2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . .2106, 2138.05,2163, 2163.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Haney 11/141,289 HORNER 112(1)/102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MARRELL HANEY
Examiner Name:
LOWE, MICHAEL S

In Mayhew, the rejected claim omitted reference to an element (use of a specially-located cooling bath) that the Specification made clear was an essential element of the invention. Mayhew, 527 F.2d at 1233. In Mayhew, an enablement rejection was upheld where an essential element was missing from the claim while, in contrast, in this case, the elements the Examiner states are essential are in claim 4.

Mayhew, In re, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2164.08(c), 2172.01, 2174
NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Endo et al
Ex Parte Thompson-Colon et al
Ex Parte van Zee

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Kennedy
Ex Parte Klein et al
Ex Parte PACETTI

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Beyerstedt et al
Ex Parte Boldy et al
Ex Parte Choi et al
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Fairhurst
Ex Parte Harville et al
Ex Parte Mital et al
Ex Parte Revie et al
Ex Parte Sankruthi
Ex Parte Uchikubo
Ex Parte Wang et al
Ex Parte van de Winkel et al

VACATED

Ex Parte Fellenstein et al

Tuesday July 27, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Moinet et al 10/497,491 WALSH 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
Examiner Name:
PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Du Toit 10/204,010 GAUDETTE 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
Examiner Name:
HUSON, MONICA ANNE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Bera 10/307,838 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM ENDICOTT LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY ENGLAND
Examiner Name:
THAI, HANH B

Ex Parte Declercq et al 11/104,044 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP
Examiner Name:
DAVIDSON, CHAD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schlichting et al 11/158,946 HANLON 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (P&W)
Examiner Name:
MILLER, DANIEL H

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Tian et al 10/695,711 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
BELLO, AGUSTIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Carr et al 10/370,421 FISCHETTI 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C
Examiner Name:
MEYERS, MATTHEW S

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Deshayes et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Wilson

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte BOLLMANN et al
Ex Parte Brenner et al
Ex Parte Chen
Ex Parte Das et al
Ex Parte Emmot
Ex Parte Fairchild et al
Ex Parte Gu et al
Ex Parte Kucharewski et al
Ex Parte Nam et al
Ex Parte Roche et al
Ex Parte Simpson et al
Ex Parte Uchiyama
Ex Parte Wang et al

Monday July 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/685,737 WALSH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Aliyev et al 11/217,219 KRATZ 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

Ex Parte Livingston et al 10/928,834 KIMLIN 103(a) GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

Ex Parte Levine et al 10/631,937 HASTINGS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kimura 10/319,712 THOMAS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Miller 11/042,534 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) CRAIG W. RODDY HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Caccavale et al 10/441,866 LUCAS 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

“[The Supreme] Court’s precedents establish that the machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under §101. The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.’” See Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192, at *8 (June 28, 2010) (majority slip op. at Part–II–B1).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stated the machine-or-transformation test for process claims. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). The involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978).

The Supreme Court, in Bilski v. Kappos, 2010 WL 2555192, at *10 (2010) (majority slip op. at Part II–C–2), held that there are other tools for establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Those tools involve an inquiry into whether a process is merely an abstract idea. “In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas provide useful tools.” (Id.). The Court outlined one such precedent:

In [Gottschalk v.] Benson, 409 U.S. [63], 70 [(CCPA 1972)], the Court considered whether a patent application for an algorithm to convert binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary code was a “process” under §101. Id. at 64–67. The Court first explained that “‘[a] principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.’” Id. at 67 (quoting Le Roy, [55 U.S.156, 175 (1852)]). The Court then held the application at issue was not a “process,” but an unpatentable abstract idea. “It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting . . . numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case.” 409 U. S. [63], at 71. A contrary holding “would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”

Id. at 72. (Id. at *11 (Part III)).

...

We thus find that Appellants’ claim 8 is merely an abstract idea in accordance with Benson, a precedential case relied upon in Bilski v. Kappos as a “useful … investigative tool” for determining subject-matter eligibility.

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

Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rahavan et al 10/771,545 NAPPI 101/102(e)/103(a) DON W. BULSON, ESQ. RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR EXAMINER ROSARIO, DENNIS

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Preaudat et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bates et al
Ex Parte Boire et al
Ex Parte Fenton et al
Ex Parte Lucidarme et al
Ex Parte Mitchell
Ex Parte Moore et al
Ex Parte Pang et al