Wednesday September 1, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Imaizumi et al 10/862,424 SCHEINER 103(a) CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP ACS LLC Examiner Name: PROUTY, REBECCA E.

Ex Parte KABBANI et al 11/522,566 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA Examiner Name: KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Berg et al 10/495,396 GAUDETTE 102(b) Gregory A Coury Bachman & LaPointe Examiner Name: KERNS, KEVIN P

Ex Parte Carvill et al 10/958,943 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP Examiner Name: HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

Ex Parte Goldsmith et al 11/758,200 COLAIANNI 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC Examiner Name: MENON, KRISHNAN S

As stated by the Federal Circuit,

[o]bviousness is determined as a matter of foresight, not hindsight. KSR did not free the PTO's examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious . . . Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion. In re Vaidyanathan, 2010 WL 2000682, * 9 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential).

As stated in In re Herrick,

The form of the rejections would seem to indicate that many of the references were considered merely cumulative. . . . Are we to choose one individual rejection for each claim and turn the entire appeal on the correctness of those rejections? Or are we to work our way step-by-step through each rejection in the hope of finding one we can sustain? Neither alternative is satisfactory from the standpoint of the public interest. . . . We decline to substitute speculation as to the rejection for the greater certainty which should come from the Patent Office in a more definite statement of the grounds of the rejections. To the extent the references are truly cumulative, the examiner . . . can so indicate. If, on the other hand, all or most of the references are really necessary to meet the claims, the rejection can be made specific as to particular references.

344 F.2d 713, 716 (CPPA 1965).

See also, Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383, 1384-85 (BPAI 1989) (Relying on Herrick for the proposition that the Examiner’s statement of the rejection was unclear because the number of rejections were too numerous and the Examiner failed to explain any one of the numerous rejections with any specificity, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences procedurally reversed the Examiner).

Blanc, Ex parte, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 716.02(c),2143.02

Ex Parte Merdan 10/190,975 TIMM 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC Examiner Name: KERNS, KEVIN P

Ex Parte NG et al 10/017,488 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) Mark G. Bocchetti Eastman Kodak Company Examiner Name: Burney, Rachel L

Ex Parte Schmid et al 10/696,394 COLAIANNI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACHARD COMPANY Examiner Name: SHAH, MANISH S.

Ex Parte Williams et al 10/604,790 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCGARRY BAIR CO. Examiner Name: DOUYON, LORNA M.

Ex Parte Witty et al 11/287,841 PAK 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC Examiner Name: D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

Ex Parte Zeuner et al 11/151,153 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
Examiner Name: MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gregory 10/749,525 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: KASSA, HILINA S.

Ex Parte Ahmavaara 10/874,424 MARTIN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Examiner Name: CAI, WAYNE HUU

Ex Parte Belk 10/694,074 HAIRSTON 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P Examiner Name: YENKE, BRIAN P.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Lee et al 10/874,144 KRIVAK 103(a) ELLIOT B. ARONSON Examiner Name: SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S

Ex Parte GARDINER et al 11/226,829 HANLON 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Examiner Name: VALENTIN, JUAN D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cognigni et al 11/227,027 CRAWFORD 102(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC Examiner Name: LE, LOAN T.

Ex Parte Delago 10/786,202 PATE III 103(a) Stuart R. Hemphill, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Examiner Name: BRAHAN, THOMAS J

Ex Parte Hope 10/033,518 PATE III 112(2)/103(a) Kenneth J. LuKacher, Esq. Examiner Name: REDMAN, JERRY E

Ex Parte Jollie et al 09/974,377 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) FREDERICK W. GIBB, III Gibb Intellectual Property Law Firm, LLC Examiner Name: BOYCE, ANDRE D.

Ex Parte Pirro et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC Examiner Name: KRAMER, JAMES A

Ex Parte Smith et al 11/031,457 PATE III 103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL Examiner Name: PIPALA, EDWARD J.

Ex Parte Stefanic et al 10/998,147 PATE III 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. Examiner Name: LUGO, CARLOS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bodmeier 10/192,575 McCARTHY Concurring BAHR 102(e)/102(b) INNOVAR, L.L.C. Examiner Name: WITCZAK, CATHERINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Barry et al 11/127,499 SPIEGEL nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP Examiner Name: BROWN, COURTNEY A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Satlow 10/078,780 DIXON 102(e) HOWARD IP LAW GROUP Examiner Name: PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Rajsic 10/814,330 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. Examiner Name: MOORE JR, MICHAEL J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Bez et al 11/045,170 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Gerbera/BSTZBlakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP Examiner Name: GOODWIN, DAVID J

Ex Parte Wahlstrom 11/281,031 BAUMEISTER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC Examiner Name: PAYNE, SHARON E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cowelchuk et al 10/904,010 CRAWFORD 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (LEAR) Examiner Name: BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A

Ex Parte Hansen 11/114,911 CRAWFORD 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP Examiner Name: MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Weber 10/084,857 PATE III 102(e)/103(a) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC Examiner Name: BUI, VY Q

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3615
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,106 5,921,855 ROBERTSON 103(a)
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant2 90/010,107 6,520,847 ROBERTSON 103(a)
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant3 90/010,108 6,699,115 ROBERTSON 103(a)
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant4 90/010,109 6,824,455 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER:APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C

REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3712
Ex parte MUZZY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Appellant 90/008,081 6,780,079 SONG 103(a) For the Patent Owner: BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. For the Third Party Requester: HOLLAND & HART, LLP Examiner Name: CLARKE, SARA SACHIE

"[A]n 'argument already decided by the Office, whether during the original examination or an earlier reexamination' cannot raise a new question of patentability . . . . As [the Federal Circuit] explained in In re Recreative Technologies Corp., the substantial new question requirement 'guard[s] against simply repeating the prior examination on the same issues and arguments' and bars 'a second examination, on the identical ground that had previously been raised and overcome.'" Id. (Citations omitted). "Determining the scope of an examiner's previous consideration of a reference will generally require an analysis of the record of the prior proceedings to determine if and how the examiner used the reference in making his initial decisions . . . . While the standard is more flexible than before [the 2002 amendment to § 303], we are mindful that Congress intended that the courts continue to 'judiciously interpret the 'substantial new question' standard to prevent cases of abusive tactics and harassment of patentees through reexamination.'" Id. at 1380-81 (citing H.R.Rep.No. 107-120, at 3).

Recreative Technologies, In re, 83 F.3d 1394, 38 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 2242, 2246, 2642, 2646

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bruckner et al
09/859,114 HOFF 102(e)/103(a)
Ex Parte King et al
11/225,601 PATE III 103(a) MOTOROLA INC
Ex Parte Lillie et al
10/334,521 MARTIN 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC.
Ex Parte Ng et al
11/417,488 OWENS 102(b)/103(a)
3693
Ex Parte Pirro et al
10/893,396 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MICHAEL C. POPHAL
EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER
KRAMER, JAMES A
Ex Parte Stearns et al
11/439,758 SMITH 103(a)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Singh et al
11/455,671 COLAIANNI 103(a)
Ex Parte Yoon
10/667,383 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a)

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Blamires et al
10/620,364 SAADAT 103(a)
1716
Ex Parte Chen et al
10/770,737 WARREN 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER
HILTON, ALBERT
1611
Ex Parte Focht et al
10/665,670 PRATS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA
Ex Parte Galligan et al
10/376,836 KIMLIN 103(a)
2626
Ex Parte Helbing
10/496,548 HOFF 103(a) Philips Electronics North America Corporation EXAMINER
LERNER, MARTIN
Ex Parte Henning et al
10/117,655 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
Ex Parte Hofrichter et al
Ex Parte Hoy
Ex Parte Jeddeloh
Ex Parte Jelenc
Ex Parte Kajiya et al
Ex Parte Kozubal et al
Ex Parte Kruse
Ex Parte Lewis
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al
Ex Parte Mekala et al
Ex Parte McElray et al
Ex Parte Naud et al
Ex Parte Nickerson et al
Ex Parte O'DONNELL
Ex Parte Penna et al
Ex Parte Persky
Ex Parte Raikar
Ex Parte Rees
Ex Parte Reisinger
Ex Parte SANTHOFF et al
Ex Parte Shah et al
Ex Parte Stoiber et al
Ex Parte Ting et al
Ex Parte Tucker et al
Ex Parte Walter
Ex Parte Watts et al
Ex Parte Yanagita et al
Ex Parte York
Ex Parte Zetterholm et al

Tuesday August 31, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Sharma et al 10/838,714 SCHEINER 103(a) RHODIA, INC. Examiner Name OH, TAYLOR V

Ex Parte Ghosh et al 11/229,382 MILLS 103(a) DAVID S. HARPER MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF Examiner Name: COOK, LISA V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Seth et al 10/921,737 SMITH 103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN Examiner Name CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN

“[T]he analysis that ‘should be made explicit’ refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis.” Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Ex Parte Gibson et al 11/760,496 SMITH 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD Examiner Name CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

Ex Parte STEARNS et al 11/439,758 SMITH 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC Examiner Name PARSONS, THOMAS H

Ex Parte THIES et al 10/958,657 WARREN 112(1)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Examiner Name LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Thompson et al 11/052,432 LUCAS 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN ABEL & POLANSKY, LLP Examiner Name CHERY, MARDOCHEE

“[T]he ultimate inference as to the existence of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of ‘common sense.’” Philip W. Wyers v. Master Lock Company, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Faraldo 10/016,117 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Andre M. Gibbs BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP Examiner Name TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962).

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Park et al 11/017,109 MARTIN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC Examiner Name SHAPIRO, LEONID

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Belliveau 10/801,177 HORNER 251 Donald R. Dunner FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Examiner Name LEE, Y MY QUACH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Babbitt et al 10/453,731 O’NEILL 103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC Examiner Name CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Colthurst 11/029,748 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC Examiner Name NGUYEN, PHONG H

Ex Parte Francischelli et al 10/792,178 PATE III 102(b) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MEDTRONIC, INC. Examiner Name JOHNSON III, HENRY M

Ex Parte Soltys et al 11/059,743 PATE III 102(b) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC Examiner Name SUHOL, DMITRY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schweizer et al 10/465,907 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC Examiner Name BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Ex Parte Brietbach 11/485,065 ROBERTSON 103(a) TAT R. SWANSON FLETCHER YODER Examiner Name SAAD, ERIN BARRY

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Monteleone et al 10/410,549 BARRY 112(2)/101/102(b) JACK SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Examiner Name NUNEZ, JORDANY

Ex Parte Muller et al 11/098,245 DIXON 102(e) MHKKG/Oracle (SUN) Examiner Name KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Dokumaci et al 10/908,442 HAHN 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C Examiner Name WILSON, ALLAN R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Krischer 10/483,129 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Francis C Hand Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewar & Olstein Examiner Name DEUBLE, MARK A

Ex Parte Ware et al 10/896,239 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) BRETT J. TROUT, PC Examiner Name POON, PETER M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Girard et al 10/807,590 HORNER 103(a) BINGHAM McCUTCHEN, LLP Examiner Name DESANTO, MATTHEW F

See York Prods, Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing the term “substantially” as “largely but not wholly that which is specified”).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181

Ex Parte Goodrich et al 11/025,624 McCARTHY 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE Examiner Name QUINN, RICHALE LEE

Ex Parte Schneider 10/711,102 PATE III 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) Examiner Name PASCHALL, MARK H

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2122
Ex parte ION SYSTEMS, INC. 90/008,069 6,389,437 EASTHOM 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP Examiner Name STEELMAN, MARY J

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2738
Ex parte SP CONTROLS, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,802 6,137,794 TURNER 103(a) Patent Owner: DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP Third Party Requester: THE HECKER LAW GROUP Examiner Name WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS

NEW

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Oehler et al 09/932,456 NAPPI 112(1)/103(a) Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Soltys et al 11/059,743 PATE III 102(b) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER RUSSELL, MATTHEW S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Brietbach 11/485,065 ROBERTSON 103(a) Tat R. Swanson FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte McLean et al 11/124,614 RUGGIERO 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Bucolo et al 10/812,551 McCOLLUM 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

1628 Ex Parte Suffin et al 10/697,497 SPIEGEL 103(a) MEDLEN & CARROLL, LLP EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M

1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Almog 10/039,481 GARRIS 112(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

1729 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/836,732 HANLON 103(a) HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG

1733 Ex Parte Harutyunyan et al 11/241,541 TIMM 103(a) HONDA/FENWICK EXAMINER WYSZOMIERSKI, GEORGE P

1781 Ex Parte Wolever et al 10/984,914 PAK 103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER STULII, VERA

1785 Ex Parte Burch et al 10/703,740 SMITH 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HESS, BRUCE H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Russo et al 10/744,301 LUCAS 101/102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHEN, TE Y

2168 Ex Parte Blumenfeld 10/956,131 THOMAS 103(a) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER
MOBIN, HASANUL

2183 Ex Parte Dale et al 11/274,838 LUCAS 103(a)/obvious-type double patenting IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Walker 10/387,182 STEPHENS 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

2451 Ex Parte Gracyk 10/425,831 HOFF 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Salemi et al 10/167,056 PATE III 102(b) James M. Deimen EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

3616 Ex Parte Andres 10/820,289 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH

3637 Ex Parte Thrush et al 11/177,520 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3693 Ex Parte Norquist et al 10/269,640 MOHANTY 103(a) Qwest Communications International Inc. EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3695 Ex Parte Albornoz 10/759,966 FISCHETTI 102(b)/112(2)/101 FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. EXAMINER MADAMBA, CLIFFORD B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Walker 10/371,787 HORNER 251/103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3737 Ex Parte Brister et al 10/827,987 BAHR 102(e)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER LAMPRECHT, JOEL

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Miller et al 09/774,515 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Timothy T. Patula, Esq. PATULA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Monday August 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Andrews 11/384,213 GREEN 103(a) BATEMAN IP LAW GROUP Examiner Name: HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fukuzumi et al 10/515,134 NAGUMO 103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. Examiner Name: IP, SIKYIN

As has often been pointed out, there are no per se rules in the law of obviousness. In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“reliance on per se rules of obviousness is legally incorrect and must cease.”)

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . 706.02(n), 2116.01, 2144.08

Ex Parte Gille et al 10/880,173 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED Examiner Name: DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

Ex Parte Lyons et al 10/693,845 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Examiner Name: DOVE, TRACY MAE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Janik et al 11/113,529 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Examiner Name: SHAW, PELING ANDY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kam-Chak Cheng et al 11/362,681 LORIN 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS Examiner Name: MALHOTRA, SANJEEV

Ex Parte Pembroke 11/039,387 MOHANTY 103(a) John J. Pembroke Examiner Name: VYAS, ABHISHEK

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kroll et al 11/406,588 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG Examiner Name: MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Yadav et al 10/679,611 PAK 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PPG INDUSTRIES INC Examiner Name: LORENGO, JERRY A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Honda 11/062,954 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. Examiner Name: KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Auzerie

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Baynham et al
Ex Parte Flury et al
Ex Parte Jackson et al
Ex Parte Kurashima et al
Ex Parte Leaming
Ex Parte Minno et al
Ex Parte Sears
Ex Parte Sophiea et al
Ex Parte Stebbing et al
Ex Parte Weichselbaum et al
Ex Parte Zhao et al

Friday August 27, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte deVry 11/280,567 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cereghini et al 10/378,682 MOHANTY 102(e) JAMES M. STOVER TERA DATA CORPORATION EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

Ex Parte Estrada et al 10/731,823 LORIN 102(e)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

The law in the area of patent-eligible subject matter for process claims has recently been clarified by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S. June 28, 2010). The Court held that the term “process” as used in § 101, does not categorically exclude business methods. Id. at *9.

The Court is unaware of any argument that the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,” Diehr, supra, at 182, of “method” excludes business methods. Nor is it clear how far a prohibition on business patents would reach, and whether it would exclude technologies for conducting a business more efficiently. “

At the same time, some business method patents raise special problems in terms of vagueness and suspect validity.” Id. (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 397 (2006)) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

In searching for a limiting principle, this Court’s precedents on the unpatentibility of abstract ideas provide useful tools. See infra 12-15. Indeed, if the Court of Appeals were to succeed in defining a narrower category or class of patent applications that claim to instruct how business should be conducted, and then rule that the category is unpatentable because, for instance, it represents an attempt to patent abstract ideas, this conclusion might well be in accord with controlling precedent. Id.

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Ex Parte Feinberg 09/785,095 FISCHETTI 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

Ex Parte Stein et al 10/415,206 FISCHETTI 103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. Examiner Name: SHRESTHA, BIJENDRA K

35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph Enablement

By analogy, suppose that an inventor created a particular fuel-efficient automobile engine and described the engine in such detail in the specification that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to build the engine. Although the specification would meet the requirements of section 112 with respect to a claim directed to that particular engine, it would not necessarily support a broad claim to every possible type of fuel-efficient engine, no matter how different in structure or operation from the inventor's engine. The single embodiment would support such a generic claim only if the specification would "reasonably convey to a person skilled in the art that [the inventor] had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing," Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and would "enable one of ordinary skill to practice ‘the full scope of the claimed invention,’" Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004), quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993); PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996). To hold otherwise would violate the Supreme Court's directive that "[i]t seems to us that nothing can be more just and fair, both to the patentee and the public, than that the former should understand, and correctly describe, just what he has invented, and for what he claims a patent." Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 573-74 (1876); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 ("The patent system is based on the proposition that the claims cover only the invented subject matter."); AK Steel Corp., 344 F.3d at 1244 ("as part of the quid pro quo of the patent bargain, the applicant's specification must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claimed invention"). Thus, a patentee cannot always satisfy the requirements of section 112, in supporting expansive claim language, merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed. For that reason, we hold that the description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor of the ′835 patent to claim any and all means for achieving that objective. See, LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1344-1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Chiron v. Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 70 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.03, 2164.05(a)

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

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

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

AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 68 USPQ2d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163, 2164.08

Lizard Tech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 76 USPQ2d 1724 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Freyman et al 10/645,653 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE

Ex Parte Talya et al 10/813,720 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2736
Ex parte TYCO SAFETY PRODUCTS CANADA, LTD. 90/010,071 5,923,250 TORCZON 103(a)Joseph E. Palys, FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, for appellant H. Wayne Porter, BANNER &WITCOFF, LTD., for the reexamination requester EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Cereghini et al
Ex Parte COLVIG et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Bahl et al
Ex Parte Brock

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Call
Ex Parte Duvert et al
Ex Parte Galli et al
Ex Parte Gradl
Ex Parte Hollmann et al
Ex Parte Huang
Ex Parte Iwai et al
Ex Parte Kelly et al
Ex Parte Khan
Ex Parte Mohammadi et al
Ex Parte Monnerie et al
Ex Parte Oppermann et al
Ex Parte Pourheidari
Ex Parte Shitara et al
Ex Parte Wechter et al
Ex Parte Westmijze et al
Ex Parte Zhong et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Willis

Thursday August 26, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Stopek et al 11/292,172 PRATS 103(a) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LPD/B/A COVIDIEN Examiner Name: DICKINSON, PAUL W

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Grandominico et al 11/355,053 PAK 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. Examiner Name: O HERN, BRENT T

Ex Parte Kitamura et al 11/682,527 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Examiner Name: GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

As our reviewing court has recently stated, “it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose the claim limitations; in addition, ‘it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as the new invention does.’” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 3257312 at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007)).

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

Ex Parte Kuibira et al 10/480,166 FRANKLIN 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Examiner Name: DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

Ex Parte Sachedina et al 10/921,469 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE Examiner Name: DEBROW, JAMES J

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mohammed 10/115,767 RUGGIERO 103(a) ADELI & TOLLEN, LLP Examiner Name: IQBAL, KHAWAR

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Collazo 10/679,569 HORNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK Examiner Name: CARTER, TARA ROSE E

Ex Parte DeSmet et al 10/941,210 BARRETT 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. Examiner Name: STEWART, ALVIN J

Ex Parte Sosalla et al 11/025,528 McCARTHY 103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE Examiner Name: STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted). In dealing with printed matter, “the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” Id. at 1386.

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947) (differences in ornamentation are entitled to little weight in determining the obviousness of a claim to a structure).

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Ginger 10/140,694 GRIMES 112(1)/112(2) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP Examiner Name: BAUSCH, SARAE L

“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Ex Parte Miles et al 11/528,286 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC Examiner Name: DIRAMIO, JACQUELINE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Robertson et al 10/876,171 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) C. DALE QUISENBERRY POLASEK, QUISENBERRY AND ERRINGTON, L.L.P. Examiner Name: MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gingles 10/991,289 McCARTHY 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/INDY/COOK Examiner Name: VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1615
DAIRY HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. Third Party Requester and Respondent v. Patent of IBA, INC 95/001,016 7,208,170 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Terry M. Crellin Third Party Requestor: Jonathan R. Lee Patent Owner and Appellant Examiner Name: HUANG, EVELYN MEI

To overcome a finding of obviousness by demonstrating commercial success, there must be a nexus between commercial success and the claimed features. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[T]he asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[I]f the commercial success is due to an unclaimed feature of the device, the commercial success is irrelevant. So too if the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech. Inc., 463 F.3d at 1312 (footnotes omitted).

“Ordinarily, [a] nexus may be inferred when ‘the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and that the thing (product or method) that is commercially successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports Inc., 392 F.3d at 1324 (citing Demaco Corp. v. F, Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

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

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.01(d), 716.03, 716.03(a), 716.03(b)

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3733
Ex parte FITLINXX, INC. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,024 5,785,632 LANE 102(b) Kevin Mason Ryan, Mason, & Lewis, LLP Examiner Name: FOSTER, JIMMY G

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Montero
Ex Parte Rodrigues et al
Ex Parte Sesek et al
Ex Parte Umezawa et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Eves et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ballard et al
Ex Parte Bunker et al
Ex Parte Faber et al
Ex Parte Guo et al
Ex Parte Kelkar et al
Ex Parte Reddy et al
Ex Parte Ryan
Ex Parte Buckenmaier
Ex Parte Senda et al
Ex Parte Zha et al

Wednesday August 25, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/392,342 GREEN 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L

Ex Parte Molla et al 11/043,294 WALSH 103(a) QUARLES & BRADY LLP EXAMINER SKOWRONIK, KARLHEINZ R

Ex Parte West et al 11/211,174 GREEN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER TON, THAIAN N

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Nakakado et al 11/180,170 OWENS 103(a) MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP Examiner Name: MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Ex Parte Lemmon et al 10/268,420 COLAIANNI 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

Ex Parte Martin et al 10/940,327KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) MOSSMAN, KUMAR AND TYLER, PC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

Ex Parte Heller 11/199,488OWENS 112(1) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN

Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 11/685,894 WARREN 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

See, e.g., KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.”).

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

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 1216.01

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Unger 09/835,991 HAIRSTON 103(a) Jonathan O OwensHaverstock & Owens LLP Examiner Name: LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

Ex Parte Cromer et al 10/742,500 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) Drigg, Hoag, Dauherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER MAIS, MARK A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Henry 10/455,002 HAIRSTON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R

Ex Parte Ellison 10/719,771 HAIRSTON 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER JAMAL, ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mauthe et al 10/746,854 LORIN 103(a) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839)ARMSTRONG TEASDALE Examiner Name: JEANTY, ROMAIN LLP

Ex Parte Szymbor et al 10/104,337 O’NEILL 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Examiner Name: BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J

Ex Parte Beier 10/975,358 KERINS 112(1) CROWELL & MORING LLP Examiner Name: FENSTERMACHER, DAVID MORGAN

Where application drawings are contended to provide the written descriptive support for a claim element, “the proper test is whether the drawings [convey] with reasonable clarity to those of ordinary skill that [the inventor] had in fact invented the [invention] recited in [the] claims.” Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1566. See also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”). Consideration of what the drawings convey to persons of ordinary skill in the art is essential. Ralston-Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

A patent drawing teaches all that it reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979).

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

Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.02

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125

Ex Parte Gatta 11/559,099 BAHR, O’NEILL concurring 102(b) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD.
Examiner Name: DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Chatenever et al 10/923,389 KERINS 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
Examiner Name: LEUBECKER, JOHN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lautenbach et al 10/502,697 WARREN 103(a) BASF CORPORATION
Examiner Name: KHAN, AMINA S

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Norsworthy et al 10/382,297 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.
Examiner Name: BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3714
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. Patent of IGT2 Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,279 6,832,958 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) APPELLANT / THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP RESPONDENT / PATENT OWNER: WEAVER, AUSTIN, VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON, LLP
Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3406
Ex parte GARY E. RHINE, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/005,694 4,910,652 LANE 103(a)
James F. Porcello, Jr. Emch Schaffer, Schaub and Porcello Co LPA Third Party Requester Scott Simpson Sills, Cummis & Gross, P.C.
Examiner Name: HUSAR, STEPHEN F

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Wyers v. Master Lock Co., App. No. 2009-1412, 2010 WL 2901839, at *4 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2010).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3763
Ex parte VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC. (a subsidiary of C.R. BARD, INC.),Appellant 90/010,167 6,213,979 DELMENDO 102(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name: FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a structure in the prior art (or infringing product) is “equivalent” to a structure described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed means if it “performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure . . .” Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “[S]tructures with different numbers of parts may still be equivalent under § 112, ¶ 6, thereby meeting the claim limitation.” Odetics, 185 F.3d at 1268.

Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 51 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2183, 2184

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Borthakur et al
Ex Parte Finkelshtain et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Samra et al
Ex Parte Schembri et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Alpert et al
Ex Parte Herrington et al
Ex Parte Bohm et al
Ex Parte Barreto et al
Ex Parte Corstjens et al
Ex Parte Creamer et al
Ex Parte Crombez et al
Ex Parte Edwards et al
Ex Parte Futa et al
Ex Parte Kalra
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Nye et al
Ex Parte Pierpont et al
Ex Parte Rader et al
Ex Parte Rosenbaum et al
Ex Parte Sako
Ex Parte Schluckwerder et al
Ex Parte Surjaatmadja et al
Ex Parte Todd
Ex Parte Yoneda et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Valint et al