Tuesday August 24, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kapur et al 10/934,893 ADAMS 112(1) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner Name: SWARTZ, RODNEY P

Ex Parte MacDonald et al 10/686,933 WALSH 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
Examiner Name: HARTLEY, MICHAEL G

“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious….” See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Fritsch v. Lin, 21 USPQ2d 1731 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) . . . .2137.01, 2138.06

Ex Parte Ramesh et al 10/453,912 McCOLLUM 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
Examiner Name: CHONG, YONG SOO

Ex Parte Spruce et al 10/473,295 ADAMS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
Examiner Name: SANG, HONG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Wash 11/179,376 PAK 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP
Examiner Name: KIM, SUN U

Ex Parte Yan et al 10/407,609 GAUDETTE 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
Examiner Name: MERCADO, JULIAN A

In In re Crish, our reviewing court interpreted the phrase “consists of,” appearing in the body of a claim, as limiting the clause for which it acts as a transition to only those elements found in that particular clause. 393 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The reasonable interpretation of … claims containing both of the terms ‘comprising’ and ‘consists' is that the term ‘consists' limits the ‘said portion’ language to the subsequently recited numbered nucleotides, but the earlier term ‘comprising’ means that the claim can include that portion plus other nucleotides.”). Although “comprising” is not as restrictive as “consisting of,” it is, nonetheless, “a term of art . . . mean[ing] that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim,” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03,2138.05, 2163

Ex Parte Barbee et al 10/261,879 WARREN 103(a) ANN M. LEE LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Examiner Name: FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ito 10/863,777 THOMAS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name: KIM, HONG CHONG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Dureau 10/271,801 HAIRSTON 101/102(e)/103(a) OPTV/MEYERTONS MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
Examiner Name: HUYNH, SON P

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ng et al 10/561,194 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Dickinson Wright PLLCJames E. Ledbetter, Esq.
Examiner Name: CHAMBERS, TANGELA T

Ex Parte Hirakawa et al 10/811,246 SAADAT 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
Examiner Name: LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Maeda et al 11/274,170 KERINS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, DUNG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Meyer 10/521,599 PRATS 112(2)/103(a)/obviousness type double patenting RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
Examiner Name: ARNOLD, ERNST V

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Tsuji et al 10/154,129 HAHN 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS, L.L.P.
Examiner Name: JOO, JOSHUA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Westphall et al 11/199,845 HAIRSTON 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name: DESAI, NIDHI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex parte CATERPILLAR INC. 10/952,887 LEE 103(a) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.
Examiner Name: TRIEU, THAI BA

Ex Parte Khan et al 10/812,380 McCARTHY 103(a) NAZIR A. KHAN, MD
Examiner Name: DEAK, LESLIE R

VACATED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Buechler et al 10/193,960 GREEN 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) INVERNESS MEDICAL INNOVATIONS / WSGR WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
Examiner Name: WESSENDORF, TERESA D

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Barry et al
Ex Parte Goela et al
Ex Parte Horak
Ex Parte Lyon et al
Ex Parte Meltzer et al
Ex Parte Menrad et al
Ex Parte O’HARA et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Gilinsky
Ex Parte Tanaka

VACATED

Ex Parte Christian et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Adachi et al
Ex Parte Agapi et al
Ex Parte Bergeron
Ex Parte Bouquet et al
Ex Parte Classen
Ex Parte Cooper et al
Ex Parte Dunifon et al
Ex Parte Fogarty et al
Ex Parte Lyu et al
Ex Parte Magnuson et al
Ex Parte Manning
Ex Parte Obrea et al
Ex Parte Rastegar et al
Ex Parte Semersky et al
Ex Parte Stromblad et al
Ex Parte Wegehaupt
Ex Parte Zhang et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Batra et al
Ex Parte Demarcken et al

Monday August 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rigler 11/139,080 ADAMS 103(a)
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP
Examiner Name: CALAMITA, HEATHER

Ex Parte Straub et al 10/053,929 SPIEGEL 103(a)
PABST PATENT GROUP LLP
Examiner Name: FUBARA, BLESSING M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/401,293 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a)
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Examiner Name: FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kaczmarski 10/480,545 MARTIN 103(a)
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name: MAYO III, WILLIAM H

NEW

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ali et al
Ex Parte Brennan et al
Ex Parte Cameron
Ex Parte Carter
Ex Parte Chan et al
Ex Parte Holmaas et al
Ex Parte Lerner et al
Ex Parte Palm
Ex Parte Reisinger
Ex Parte Teow et al
Ex Parte Uhl et al
Ex Parte Veeneman et al
Ex Parte Veeneman et al

Friday August 20, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Butcher et al 10/807,499 HUGHES 103(a) Nixon & Vanderhye, PC
Examiner Name: LI, AIMEE J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blette et al 10/941,284 O’NEILL 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
Examiner Name: ARK, DARREN W

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte BUTTERCUP LEGACY, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,820 7,166,561 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: Workman Nydegger Third Part Requester: Roy A. Kim Venable LLP
Examiner Name: JOHNSON, JERRY D

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bartoszyk et al
Ex Parte Lobo

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Beavo et al
Ex Parte Cuylen
Ex Parte Ploemen et al
Ex Parte Shellans

REHEARING

Ex Parte Katzenmaier et al

Thursday August 19, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Postajian 11/059,075 WALSH 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP
Examiner Name: FRAZIER, BARBARA S

“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability. Only a reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be achieved is necessary to show obviousness.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte SHIMA et al 11/307,956 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) NDQ&M WATCHSTONE LLP
Examiner Name: TRINH, THANH TRUC

The mere fact that the prior art could be modified does not make the modification obvious under § 103 unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Crabtree 10/433,260 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) Nixon & Vanderhye, PC
Examiner Name: STACE, BRENT S

Ex Parte Candy Wong et al 10/271,302 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Examiner Name: NUNEZ, JORDANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Potts 10/948,639 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) CATERPILLAR c/o LIELL, MCNEIL & HARPER
Examiner Name: YEAGLEY, DANIEL S

Ex Parte Conaway et al 10/805,685 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
Examiner Name: AVERY, BRIDGET D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Ludtke et al 09/794,677 JEFFERY 112(1)/101/102(a) Gregory J. Koerner Redwood Patent Law
Examiner Name: ENG, DAVID Y

see also David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dunn et al 10/835,929 O’NEILL 103(a) KNOBLE, YOSHIDA & DUNLEAVY
Examiner Name: CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Postajian
Ex Parte Toney

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte D’AMATO

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bachstein et al
Ex Parte Heikes et al
Ex Parte Jayne et al
Ex Parte Setton

Wednesday August 18, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Seul 10/943,760 PRATS 103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL
Examiner Name: RIGGS II, LARRY D

In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007), the Supreme Court emphasized “an expansive and flexible approach” to the obviousness question, but nonetheless reaffirmed that

it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.

Id. at 418-419 (emphasis added); see also id. at 418 (requiring a determination of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”) (emphasis added).

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Graupner et al 10/936,893 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP
Examiner Name: NAGPAUL, JYOTI

Ex Parte Qu et al 11/015,928 NAGUMO 103(a) JONES & SMITH , LLP
Examiner Name: TOSCANO, ALICIA

Ex Parte Reising 11/064,394 TIMM 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
Examiner Name: KRUER, KEVIN R

Ex Parte Shah 10/815,282 KRATZ 103(a) tc INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY / TECHNOLOGY
LAW
Examiner Name: TRAN, THAO T

Ex Parte Tanaka 10/674,169 TIMM 103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C.
Examiner Name: HUSON, MONICA ANNE

Ex Parte Turner et al 10/877,264 OWENS 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
Examiner Name: WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Sarma 10/260,834 SAADAT 102(e) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
Examiner Name: BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Holms et al 11/071,827 SILVERBERG 103(a) JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD.
Examiner Name: VALENTI, ANDREA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Belson 11/129,168 SILVERBERG 102(b) INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.
Examiner Name: KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lawson 11/477,980 SIU 112(2)/102(b) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens
Examiner Name: THAI, TUAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Kubo et al 10/953,364 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
Examiner Name: BERHANU, SAMUEL

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2132
Ex parte A. JAMES SMITH, JR. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,078 6,571,336 TURNER 102(e) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
Examiner Name: CHOI, WOO H

Determination of a priority date is purely a question of law if the facts underlying that determination are undisputed. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., 525 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, determination whether a priority document contains sufficient disclosure to comply with the written description aspect of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Waldemar Link v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558 (Fed.Cir.1994); Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

...

Prosecution history can also be relevant to claim interpretation. See Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A]ny interpretation that is provided or disavowed in the prosecution history also shapes the claim scope.”); see also Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[P]rosecution history . . . cannot be used to limit the scope of a claim unless the applicant took a position before the PTO that would lead a competitor to believe that the applicant had disavowed coverage of the relevant subject matter.”).

An applicant’s statement to the examiner is a compelling disclaimer of scope such that a patent may not be entitled to an earlier priority date. Bradford, 603 F.3d at 1269 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We take the patentee at its word and will not construe the scope of ... [a] patent's claims more broadly than the patentee itself clearly envisioned.”)). That is because arguments made to persuade an examiner to allow an application trump an ambiguous disclosure that otherwise might have sufficed to obtain an earlier priority date. See Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that any argument made to convince the examiner of the patentability of the claimed invention “limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance”).

Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 31 USPQ2d 1855 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . 706.03(o)

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 48 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Miller et al
Ex Parte Webb

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Brown et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Arntzen et al
Ex Parte Borgaonkar et al
Ex Parte Dale et al
Ex Parte DeStefano et al
Ex Parte Edwards et al
Ex Parte Fine et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Panz et al
Ex Parte Sulm et al
Ex Parte Tessnow et al
Ex Parte Weiss

Tuesday August 17, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ashmead et al 11/483,410 MILLS nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP.
Examiner Name: PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

To determine if obviousness-type double patenting is present one must determine if any claim in the application at issue defines merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the cited patents. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42 (CCPA 1970). The disclosure of a reference patent may not be used as prior art; in certain situations, however, it may be used to define terms in claim and to determine whether an embodiment claimed was modified in an obvious manner. Carman Indus., Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Obviousness-type double patenting entails a two-step analysis. First, the allegedly conflicting claims are construed and, second, the difference(s) between the claims are considered to determine whether the claims are patentably distinct. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim.” Id. Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . . . 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

Carman Indus. Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 220 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . 804, 1504.06

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

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . .804

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ebner et al 10/322,896 TIMM 103(a) DANIEL B. RUBLE SEALED AIR CORPORATION
Examiner Name: PATTERSON, MARC A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Messerges et al 10/306,494 KRIVAK 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC.
Examiner Name: DADA, BEEMNET W

Ex Parte Gray et al 10/221,364 JEFFERY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name: MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

Ex Parte Greer et al 09/788,628 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, THANH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 10/031,282 O’NEILL 103(a) WILLIAM S FROMMER FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
Examiner Name: WILLIAMS, ROSS A

Ex Parte Burmeister et al 10/443,231 LEE 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Examiner Name: PREBILIC, PAUL B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Shoemaker et al 10/651,733 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) James P. BroderRoeder & Broder LLP
Examiner Name: THAI, HANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Erickson et al 09/984,969 BLANKENSHIP 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name: TANG, KAREN C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sato et al 10/523,708 BARRETT 103(a) THE GATES CORPORATION
Examiner Name: PILKINGTON, JAMES

See In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Appellants may show that the claimed invention has an unexpected property over the prior art “with evidence that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would find surprising or unexpected.”).

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

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2856
Ex parte R.A.Y. BUECHLER HOLDINGS (1995) LTD. Appellant 90/006,877 5,942,699 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT J. VASTA, JR.
Examiner Name: KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2606
Ex parte LECTROLARM CUSTOM SYSTEMS, INC. Appellant 90/007,400 4,974,088 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR APPELLANT: DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DARBY & DARBY, P.C.
Examiner Name: POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Dahan et al
Ex Parte Ramanzin

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Emigh et al
Ex Parte Fischer et al
Ex Parte Hackbarth et al
Ex Parte Leiser et al
Ex Parte Lindsay et al
Ex Parte Merkin
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Paganessi et al
Ex Parte Sia et al
Ex Parte Sperling et al
Ex Parte Tanaami et al

Monday August 16, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Stenton 10/460,646 ADAMS 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
Examiner Name: FUBARA, BLESSING M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sawachi 10/183,148 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
Examiner Name: LAM, HUNG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Smith 10/703,373 LORIN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MR. CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROURK JACKSON WALKER LLP
Examiner Name: WORJLOH, JALATEE

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Maxson et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bosshart
Ex Parte Jordan et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte TJOA

wright2

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Prevost et al 10/433,857 WALSH 112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name: BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN

“When the scope of a claim has been changed by amendment in such a way as to justify an assertion that it is directed to a different invention than was the original claim, it is proper to inquire whether the newly claimed subject matter was described in the patent application when filed as the invention of the applicant.” In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1989). An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of error in the specification, but also the appropriate correction. In re Odd, 443 F.2d 1200, 1205 (CCPA 1971) (changing “nitrous” to “nitric” was not new matter under § 251).
Wright, In re, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.03
Ex Parte Vehring et al 10/855,798 WALSH 102(b)/102(e)/nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting NOVARTIS
Examiner Name: SASAN, ARADHANA

The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated ... as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458-1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2164.01, 2164.05(a)

1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,874 KIMLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
Examiner Name: WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte McCalvin 10/905,859 MEDLEY 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS
Examiner Name: ANDREWS, DAVID L
Ex Parte Corvin 09/747,040 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC
Examiner Name: FELTEN, DANIEL S
Ex Parte Fung et al 10/298,220 FETTING 103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP
Examiner Name: SHERR, CRISTINA O
Ex Parte Hertling et al 10/113,397 FETTING 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name: DAGNEW, SABA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Klann 11/143,365 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
Examiner Name: WILSON, LEE D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C. SIMMONS
Examiner Name: FISCHER, ANDREW J

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Tzu et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Lay et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Banerjee et al
Ex Parte Borthakur et al
Ex Parte Brockway
Ex Parte John et al
Ex Parte Johnson
Ex Parte Kobayashi et al
Ex Parte OLIVER et al
Ex Parte Paila et al
Ex Parte Ramanujam
Ex Parte Zimmer et al
Ex Parte Zohar et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Rees

Thursday August 12, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Or 10/763,377 McCOLLUM 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC
Examiner Name: KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Rogers et al 09/742,946 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
Examiner Name: KE, PENG

Ex Parte Straub et al 10/133,619 JEFFERY 112(1)/103(a) D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB
Examiner Name: SMITH, GARRETT A

Ex Parte Xu 09/748,895 LUCAS 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, CHAU T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Zhao et al 10/200,255 NAPPI 103(a) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
Examiner Name: PAREKH, NITIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Reaves et al 10/987,920 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP
Examiner Name: TRUONG, THANH K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cole et al 10/113,703 FETTING 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION
Examiner Name: COBANOGLU, DILEK B

As long as the reference discloses all of the claim limitations and enables the “subject matter that falls within the scope of the claims at issue,” the reference anticipates—no “actual creation or reduction to practice” is required. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). This is so despite the fact that the description provided in the anticipating reference might not otherwise entitle its author to a patent. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussing the “distinction between a written description adequate to support a claim under § 112 and a written description sufficient to anticipate its subject matter under §102(b)”). In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Further, where a method claim is at issue, it is a largely meaningless formulation of the standard to require a reference to disclose how to "make" that method in order to anticipate. For method claims, the "make" requirement becomes, in effect, a "use" requirement. The only way one can show that a reference enables the method is to show that a person of ordinary skill would know how to use--in other words, to practice or to carry out--the method in light of the reference. This does not mean, however, that the prior art reference must demonstrate the invention's utility. For instance, in the context of a claimed method for treating a disease, prior art reference need not disclose "proof of efficacy" to anticipate the claim. Id. at 1335.

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

Donohue, In re, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . 2121.01, 2121.02, 2131.01

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

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2811
Ex parte MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. Appellant 90/007,873 5,847,450 BOALICK 103(a)FOR PATENT OWNER: BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
Examiner Name: KIELIN, ERIK J

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Schleifer
Ex Parte Wroblewski et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Candelore et al
Ex Parte Hamlin
Ex Parte Nieman et al
Ex Parte Paatero
Ex Parte Sawoska et al
Ex Parte Spahn
Ex Parte Wang et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Lieb et al
Ex Parte Numano et al

Wednesday August 11, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Chen et al 10/856,185 McCOLLUM 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP Examiner Name: WESSENDORF, TERESA D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dey 11/199,785 HASTINGS 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Examiner Name: O HERN, BRENT T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Belau et al 10/449,987 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Examiner Name: KIDWELL, MICHELE M

While Applicants’ written description may describe a preferred embodiment where an attachment panel is disclosed as a separate component, claims are not ordinarily construed to be limited to the disclosed preferred embodiments. Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“References to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations.”) Rather, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[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); see also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment).

Additionally, we note that Applicants’ written description states that they are not bound by their specific embodiments:

While the invention has been described in detail with respect to specific aspects thereof, it will be appreciated that those skilled in the art, upon attaining an understanding of the foregoing, may readily conceive of alterations to, variations of and equivalents to these aspects. Accordingly, the scope of the present invention should be assessed as that of the appended claims and any equivalents thereto. Written Description, p. 31, ll. 18-22.

Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258

Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3600
Ex parte PAUL ARTEMI Appellant 90/006,286 11/397,053 5,584,455 SONG 103(a) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Examiner Name: WOOD, KIMBERLY T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3634
Ex parte DISPLAYS BY MARTIN PAUL CREATIVE CENTER, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,729 5,913,433 SONG 103(a) Jack A. Kanz Examiner Name: FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL

[T]he U.S.P.T.O. has recently clarified the procedure for seeking review of issues pertaining to substantial new question of patentability. See 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. 36357-58 (June 25, 2010) (hereinafter "Notice") (delegating the authority to review issues related to the Examiner's determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who may further delegate this authority to a panel of Administrative Patent Judges deciding the appeal in the ex parte reexamination proceeding).
...

In other words, "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference" in order to apply its teachings. Cross Medical Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
...

In a civil action, a challenger attacking the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. If this statutory burden is not met, "[c]ourts do not find patents 'valid', only that the patent challenger did not carry the 'burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court'." Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted, original emphasis). Therefore, "[a] prior holding of validity is not necessarily inconsistent with a subsequent holding of invalidity," Stevenson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 713 F.2d 705, 710 (Fed. Cir. 1983)), and is not binding on subsequent U.S.P.T.O. reexaminations. See Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1429 and 1429 n.3 (rejecting the U.S.P.T.O.'s argument that it was bound by a court's decision upholding a patent's validity). In U.S.P.T.O. examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof, i.e., by a preponderance of the evidence, is substantially lower than in a civil case. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, there is no presumption of validity. In re Etter, 756 F.2d at 856. Moreover, claims in reexamination "will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation." In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). Thus, considering an issue at the district court is not equivalent to the PTO considering the issue because the court and the PTO use different standards of proof. In addition, while settlement of patent litigation may be functionally identical to a license, and often includes an explicit license, a party may settle a patent litigation to reduce the costs of the legal process based upon an estimation of probable outcome and costs if the case proceeds. The Appellant has not directed us to evidence to show that it was the nature of the claimed invention and not other, e.g., economic, factors that led to the conclusion of the District Court litigation. See In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Licenses taken under the patent in suit may constitute evidence of nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate 'a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record.'") (citation omitted). We decline to decide this appeal on the basis of a third party's financial and legal estimations.

Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 76 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir.2005) . . . . . .2144

Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04

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

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1(Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2145
NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Singh et al
Ex Parte Stuebs et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Clapp et al
Ex Parte Deardurff et al
Ex Parte Eshraghi et al
Ex Parte Gueret et al
Ex Parte Hauck et al
Ex Parte Havlick et al
Ex Parte Janssen
Ex Parte Jones et al
Ex Parte Sono
Ex Parte Wanlass et al
Ex Parte Willing et al
Ex Parte Wilson
Ex Parte Zeira

REHEARING

Ex Parte Avizienis
Ex Parte Dillenbeck et al

Tuesday August 10, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Keller et al 11/018,678 ROBERTSON 103(a) NAVEL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Examiner Name: YANG, JIE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lei et al 10/201,367 C. THOMAS 103(a) Steven Fischman Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser
Examiner Name: PITARO, RYAN F

Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/143,325 SIU 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Examiner Name: CHUONG, TRUC T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Lonn 11/741,063 BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
Examiner Name: LE, JOHN H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Tkaczyk et al 10/065,159 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, TRAN N

[I]t is a canon of claim construction that two distinct claim elements should be given full effect. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Adams et al 11/036,421 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN LLP
Examiner Name: SEVERSON, RYAN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Faries, et al 10/016,128 PATE III 112(1)/103(a) EPSTEIN, EDELL, SHAPIRO, FINNAN & LYTLE, LLC
Examiner Name: WITCZAK, CATHERINE

“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

There is no legally recognizable essential gist or heart of the invention. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

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

Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
Examiner Name: ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO

Ex Parte Lind et al 10/643,189 PATE III 102(e)/103(a) Multimedia Games Inc
Examiner Name: VO, PETER DUNG BA

Ex Parte Salahieh et al 10/746,280 PATE III 102(b) SHAY GLENN LLP
Examiner Name: PREBILIC, PAUL B

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2316
Ex parte USDATA PATENT HOLDINGS, L.L.C. 90/010,101 5,325,522 TORCZON 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) Charles D. Huston, DAFFER McDANIEL LLP, of Austin, Texas, for the appellant. hird party requestor: WILLIAM J. ZYCHLEWICZ ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
Examiner Name: BANANKHAH, MAJID A

The standard rule of construction for claims before the Office, even patent claims in a reexamination, requires the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.6 This rule, however, assumes that the applicant or patentee has a mechanism for amending the claim. When a patent undergoing reexamination has expired, its claims may no longer be amended so the standard rule no longer applies. Instead, the "liberal (i.e., narrow) construction" used in invalidity proceedings is appropriate.7 Even so, under either mode of construction, the plain language of the claim is the primary determinant (consistent with express definitions in the disclosure).8 It is never proper to interpolate limitations from the specification even to preserve validity.9

6 Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655, 1656 (BPAI 1986), citing In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7 Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1656-57.
8 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
9 E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1657, citing In re
Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37 (CCPA 1978).

Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

DuPont v. Phillips, 849 F.2d 1430, 7 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . 2217, 2617

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1732
MICHAEL LADNEY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of CINPRES GAS INJECTION, LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,064 6,767,487 DELMENDO 103(a) For patent owner: DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC For Third Party Requestor: ROBERT C.J. TUTTLE BROOKS CUSHMAN P.C. Third Party Requestor: MICHAEL LADNEY
Examiner Name: JOHNSON, JERRY D

NEW

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Weirauch et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Allemann et al
Ex Parte Carbone et al
Ex Parte Daniell et al
Ex Parte Droegemueller et al
Ex Parte Fujikawa et al
Ex Parte Haga
Ex Parte Kurz et al
Ex Parte Nishioka et al
Ex Parte Santinato et al
Ex Parte Terenghi et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Ghanem et al
Ex Parte Iliff

Monday August 9, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Chaiken et al 10/969,439 ADAMS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Arbogast et al 09/893,535 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP Examiner Name: COBANOGLU, DILEK B

Ex Parte Koether 09/946,461 LORIN 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP Examiner Name: ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

Ex Parte McManamy et al 11/221,338 HORNER 103(a) COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C. Examiner Name: TRETTEL, MICHAEL

Ex Parte Struble 09/894,213 LORIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hosowich 11/407,460 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC Examiner Name: PASSANITI, SEBASTIANO

Ex Parte Larson et al 11/566,779 HORNER 251 improper recapture/103(a) ROBERT D ATKINS Examiner Name: KAVANAUGH, JOHN T

What has become known as the “recapture rule,” prevents a patentee from regaining through a reissue patent subject matter that the patentee surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of claims in the patent sought to be reissued. In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a patentee attempts to “recapture” what the patentee previously surrendered in order to obtain allowance of original patent claims, that “deliberate withdrawal or amendment … cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.” Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545 (Ct. Cl. 1966)); see also Hester Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142
F.3d 1472, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The Federal Circuit's opinion in Clement discusses a three-step test for analyzing recapture.

Step 1 involves a determination of whether and in what aspect any claims sought to be reissued are broader than the patent claims. The Federal Circuit reasoned that a reissue application claim deleting a limitation or element from a patent claim is broader as to that limitation’s or element’s aspect. 131 F.3d at 1468.

Step 2 involves a determination of whether the broader aspects of the reissue application claims relate to surrendered subject matter. 131 F.3d at 1468-69. In this respect, review of arguments and/or amendments during the prosecution history of the application, which matured into the patent sought to be reissued, is appropriate. In reviewing the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit observed that “[d]eliberately canceling or amending a claim in an effort to overcome a [prior art] reference strongly suggests that the applicant admits that the scope of the claim before cancellation or amendment is unpatentable.” 131 F.3d at 1469. See also Hester Indus., 142 F.3d at 1481 (“an amendment to overcome a prior art rejection evidences an admission that the claim was not patentable” (citations omitted)).

Step 3 of the Clement test is applied when the broadening relates to surrendered subject matter and involves a determination whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue application claim. 131 F.3d at 1469 (citations omitted).

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464,45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02

Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.02

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . 1412.02

Ex Parte Prescott 10/818,768 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) KAREN A. REX Examiner Name: KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Aiken et al 11/219,527 SCHAFER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Rehrig Pacific Examiner Name: CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

Ex Parte Owensby 10/857,268 SILVERBERG 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Examiner Name: BRADEN, SHAWN M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2824
Ex parte BROADCOM CORP. 90/006803 6,519,204 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD Examiner Name: POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Likes et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Arslan et al
Ex Parte Berg et al
Ex Parte Boss et al
Ex Parte Buchwald et al
Ex Parte Candy et al
Ex Parte Espy et al
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Lechat et al
Ex Parte Norquist et al