Friday September 17, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Honda 11/062,942 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. Examiner Name: KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Comer et al 10/479,537 HOFF 101/103(a) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Examiner Name: HOLDER, ANNER N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Lange 11/148,870 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) DAVID R. GILDEA MENLO PATENT AGENCY LLC Examiner Name: DAGER, JONATHAN M

Ex Parte Mashinsky et al 09/939,917 LORIN 103(a) ARBINET-THEEXCHANGE, INC. Examiner Name: HAMILTON, LALITA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Heim et al 11/379,215 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Currie Kendall PLC Examiner Name: MILLER, SAMANTHA A

Ex Parte Morman et al 10/730,493 PATE III 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.Examiner Name: CRAIG, PAULA L

Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11/057,530 HORNER 103(a) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP Examiner Name: MCCLELLAN, JAMES S

Ex Parte Santini et al 11/041,161 PATE III 102/103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP Examiner Name: VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Thorpe et al 10/642,059 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Examiner Name: FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

See Ex parte Borden, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (new arguments not permitted in Reply Brief without showing of good cause).

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2875
LIGHT & MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester v. Patent of SARTEK, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,060 6,679,619 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: CARR & FERRELL, LLP Examiner Name: NGUYEN, MINH T original Examiner Name: TRUONG, BAO Q

For a claim in a non-provisional application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier-filed provisional application, the provisional application must, inter alia, provide a written description of the claimed invention. New Railhead Mfg. LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 63 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.11, 2163

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2756
Ex parte Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC Appellant 90/008,591 6,101,534 MEDLEY 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL LLP ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. Third Party Requester: Van Mahamedi Shemwell Mahamedi LLP Examiner Name: WOOD, WILLIAM H original Examiner Name: RINEHART, MARK H

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bendor et al
Ex Parte Chada
Ex Parte Cook et al
Ex Parte Golla
Ex Parte Hartman et al
Ex Parte Huang et al
Ex Parte Markel
Ex Parte Yu

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Berg
Ex Parte Danner et al
Ex Parte Devoe et al
Ex Parte Dreher
Ex Parte Gleichauf
Ex Parte Hao et al
Ex Parte Hazumi
Ex Parte Iima et al
Ex Parte Kim et al
Ex Parte Markovich et al
Ex Parte Modi
Ex Parte Pourheidari et al
Ex Parte Short et al
Ex Parte Thomas
Ex Parte Watts
Ex Parte Watts et al
Ex Parte Wei

REHEARING

Ex Parte Kramer et al

REMANDED

Ex Parte Shilling

Thursday September 16, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Liu et al 10/820,647 SCHEINER 112(1) GLOBAL PATENT GROUP - KAL Examiner Name RAO, DEEPAK R

In other words, “Section 112 does not require that a specification convince persons skilled in the art that the assertions therein are correct.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678 (CCPA 1975). Instead, “it is incumbent upon the Patent Office . . . to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.” In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971).

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) . . . . 608.01(b), 2161, 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164

Ex Parte Miller et al 11/487,556 GRIMES 103(a) MTI - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HARTER, SECREST & EMERY, LLP Examiner Name TRAN, SUSAN T

Ex Parte Allef et al 11/369,566 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) LEOPOLD PRESSER SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER Examiner Name CLAYTOR, DEIRDRE RENEE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ford et al 11/841,666 WARREN 102(e)/103(a) PHAN LAW GROUP PLLC Examiner Name CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lee 10/902,607 DANG 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC Examiner Name ZAMAN, FAISAL M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Paul et al 10/338,762 MARTIN 103(a) Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation Examiner Name CHOU, ALAN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Talesky et al 10/875,119 PATE III 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN Examiner Name ALIE, GHASSEM

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Wang et al 10/021,341 OWENS 103(a)/112(2) Eastman Kodak Company Examiner Name HESS, BRUCE H

“[T]he indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the claims ‘circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.’” Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Industries Inc., 417 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005), quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172

Ex Parte Wu 11/187,206 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP Examiner Name AMAKWE, TAMRA L

In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 165 (CCPA 1960) (“We are not aided by the specification herein in determining what degrees are included within the broad term ‘substantially.’”); see also Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (when a word of degree is used, it must be determined whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree).

Nehrenberg, In re, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(b)

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 2173.05(b)

Ex Parte Raghavendran 11/141,238 TIMM 103(a) CLEMENTS BERNARD PLLC Examiner Name GRAY, JILL M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Murthy 10/926,497 EASTHOM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name SHIN, KYUNG H

Ex Parte Roy et al 10/387,177 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION Examiner Name MILLS, DONALD L

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Blanc
Ex Parte Bullman et al
Ex Parte Nadvit et al
Ex Parte Weedling et al
Ex Parte Werner

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Mullally et al
Ex Parte Quine et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Borenstein et al
Ex Parte Bracewell
Ex Parte Chiquet-Ehrismann et al
Ex Parte Domagalski et al
Ex Parte Giesler et al
Ex Parte Han et al
Ex Parte House et al
Ex Parte Kaghazian
Ex Parte Kanojia et al
Ex Parte Kempin et al
Ex Parte Khatua et al
Ex Parte Kinney et al
Ex Parte Nefzger et al
Ex Parte Nguyen et al
Ex Parte Raghavendran
Ex Parte Sano et al
Ex Parte Surwit et al
Ex Parte Westbye
Ex Parte Zhang

Wednesday September 15, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dreyer 10/885,422 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. Examiner Name: FAY, ZOHREH A

However, “patents are not barred just because it was obvious ‘to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.’” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d, at 903).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

Ex Parte Rasochova et al 11/069,601 McCOLLUM 103(a) WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI Examiner Name: WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

Ex Parte Scavone et al 11/712,771 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Examiner Name: KASSA, TIGABU

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Conner 11/252,341 COURTENAY 102(a)/103(a) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Examiner Name: MYERS, PAUL R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte McGee et al 10/043,355 COURTENAY 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION Examiner Name: NGUYEN, THANH T

Ex Parte Proidl 09/954,654 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS Examiner Name: TANG, KAREN C

Ex Parte Saxena et al 09/987,955 COURTENAY 103(a) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP/Seattle Examiner Name: TRAN, NGHI V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Suzuki 10/301,608 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 5 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC Examiner Name: LASTRA, DANIEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Bonnell et al 10/152,509 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(a)/103(a)/101 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. Examiner Name: SHAW, PELING ANDY

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Giesberts et al 10/949,444 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP Examiner Name: HSIEH, PING Y

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/062,970 LEE 103(a) Siemens Corporation Examiner Name: SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

VACATED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Rice 11/367,500 FREDMAN 103(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) INGRID MCTAGGART Examiner Name: CLAYTOR, DEIRDRE RENEE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2771
Ex parte IO RESEARCH PTY. LIMITED, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,058 6,076,094 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Richard Kim MORRISON & FOESTER LLP Examiner Name: CHOI, WOO H original app Examiner Name: HO, RUAY L

“It is also an elementary principle of patent law that when, as by recitation of ranges, or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is “anticipated” if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d. 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985). While the referenced case is directed to chemical compositions, we find that it is equally applicable to claims which provide limitations in the alternative. See Also Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1377-1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009)( If a limitation is optional, then prior art without the optional limitation can anticipate).

Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01, 2131.01, 2131.03, 2144.05

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Miyazawa et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ajmera et al
Ex Parte Antonini
Ex Parte Bridgewater et al
Ex Parte Camillocci et al
Ex Parte Capotosto et al
Ex Parte Cripe
Ex Parte Goldstein
Ex Parte Griffin et al
Ex Parte Manion et al
Ex Parte McNulty et al
Ex Parte Pathiyal
Ex Parte Woods et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Feist et al

Tuesday September 14, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Miesenbock et al 10/452,879 WALSH 102(b)/102(e)/103(a)/112(1) LARSON & ANDERSON, LLC Examiner Name: LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ

“Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods.” Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . 2163

Ex Parte Ziegler et al 10/837,755 SCHEINER 112(2)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP Examiner Name: SASAN, ARADHANA

[A] disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.

In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

“[I]t is incumbent upon the Patent Office . . . to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.” Id. at 224. In other words, the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification . . . this includes . . . providing sufficient reasons for doubting any assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.

In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 10/602,468 WARREN 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP Examiner Name: AUSTIN, AARON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Becker 10/730,619 DIXON 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Freed et al 09/900,515 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A Examiner Name: MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Aoki 10/253,662 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, P.L.C. Examiner Name: VO, QUANG N

Ex Parte Boyce 10/410,481 HOFF 101/102(a)/103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON LICENSING INC. EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Rhodes et al 10/871,242 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Michael G. Fletcher FLETCHER YODER Examiner Name: LINDSAY JR, WALTER LEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wightman et al 10/821,335 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Examiner Name: DESAI, RITA J

Ex Parte Wikström et al 11/790,465 WALSH 251/112(1) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Examiner Name: DESAI, RITA J

The Doyle decision distinguishes between the circumstance where subject matter sought on reissue could not have been prosecuted originally, e.g., because of a restriction requirement, and the circumstance where subject matter, e.g., a linking claim, could have been sought in the original application. Doyle, 293 F.3d at 1361. Doyle explains that a linking claim is distinguishable from claims precluded by the Orita doctrine if the linking claim could have been prosecuted in the application from which it was restricted. “The so-called Orita doctrine [] precludes a reissue applicant from obtaining substantially identical claims to those of nonelected groups identified in an examiner’s restriction requirement when such claims could not have been prosecuted in the application from which they were restricted.” Id. at 1359 (emphasis added). The Doyle court thus distinguished the Orita doctrine on the ground that Doyle’s “linking claims not only could have but should have been prosecuted with the elected group.” (Id. at 1360, emphasis in original.)

Doyle, In re, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.01

Orita, In re, 550 F.2d 1277, 193 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.01, 1457

Ex Parte Wolf et al 10/632,725 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)ALLISON JOHNSON, P.A. Examiner Name: WESSENDORF, TERESA D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Maschke 11/408,863 SILVERBERG 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION Examiner Name: GINSBERG, OREN ISAAC

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Banerjee et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Salter

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Alvite et al
Ex Parte Bonavia et al
Ex Parte Cook et al
Ex Parte deBlanc et al
Ex Parte Feil et al
Ex Parte Goelz et al
Ex Parte Guschin et al
Ex Parte Hao et al
Ex Parte Himmel et al
Ex Parte Lawrence
Ex Parte Liu et al
Ex Parte Ponce et al
Ex Parte Morris et al
Ex Parte Specht
Ex Parte Tran et al
Ex Parte Varpela et al
Ex Parte Veres et al

REMAND

Ex Parte Tabbara
Ex Parte Vytas et al

Monday September 13, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gulla et al 10/830,182 KRATZ 103(a) CHARLES MUSERLAIN Examiner Name HAILEY, PATRICIA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blake 10/909,827 O’NEILL 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Falahee 10/805,856 PATE III 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C Examiner Name: BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

Ex Parte Moody 11/368,091 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL Examiner Name: LAYNO, BENJAMIN

Ex Parte Yu 11/169,193 McCARTHY 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C Examiner Name: NGUYEN, KIEN T

The portion of the Appellant’s Specification which describes the Appellant’s claimed subject matter is not prior art against that subject matter. In re Pleuddemann, 910 F.2d 823 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Pleuddemann, In re, 910 F.2d 823, 15 USPQ2d 1738 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2116.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Foster et al 10/373,990 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: GERGISO, TECHANE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART – 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1724
BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ADVANCED TREATMENT SCIENCES, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,237 7,105,091 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. Examiner Name: DIAMOND, ALAN D

Our reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) provided guidance on “teaching away” as follows:

Gurley’s position appears to be that a reference that “teaches away” can not serve to create a prima facie case of obviousness. We agree that this is a useful general rule. However, such a rule can not be adopted in the abstract, for it may not be applicable in all factual circumstances. Although a reference that teaches away is a significant factor to be considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

EXAMINER REVERSED REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3644
HARRY SHANNON Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ENPAT, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,005 and 90/006,330 6,328,260 LEBOVITZ 103(a) PATENT OWNER BOHAN MATHERS & ASSOCIATED, LLC FIRST THIRD PARTY REQUESTER for 95/000,005 JIM H. SALTER BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR AND ZAFMAN SECOND THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOR 90/006,330 CLEMENTS BERNARD Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2635
Ex parte UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 90/007,876 6,587,067 BOALICK 102(b) For Patent Owner: Greenberg Traurig, LLP For Third Party Requester: LEWIS AND ROCA LLP Examiner Name: CHOI, WOO H

However, it is improper to “import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent's written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment, unless the specification makes clear that ‘the patentee . . . intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.’” JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323). It is also improper to confine the claims to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

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

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Dutton et al
Ex Parte Falahee
Ex Parte Gulla et al
Ex Parte O'HAGAN et al
Ex Parte Plummer
Ex Parte Wertenbruch et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Foster et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Chaudhry et al
Ex Parte Ensel et al
Ex Parte Hehli et al
Ex Parte Martin et al
Ex Parte Klepsch
Ex Parte Koeller
Ex Parte Nguyen
Ex Parte Ogg et al
Ex Parte ROTTWINKEL et al
Ex Parte Xu et al

Friday September 10, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Archibald et al 10/610,306 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Examiner Name: KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY

Ex Parte Kenar et al 11/584,905 GRIMES 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH Examiner Name: KARPINSKI, LUKE E

“Consistent with the rule that all evidence of nonobviousness must be considered when assessing patentability, the PTO must consider comparative data in the specification in determining whether the claimed invention provides unexpected results. In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results … and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Id. at 751.

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Cook et al
Ex Parte Kenar et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Hoffmann et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Baltimore et al
Ex Parte Bodsworth et al
Ex Parte Breton et al
Ex Parte Crosby et al
Ex Parte Goff et al
Ex Parte LANG
Ex Parte Lo et al
Ex Parte Matthews et al
Ex Parte Nakas et al
Ex Parte Sheddan et al
Ex Parte Youngpeter et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte BROWN

REMAND

Ex Parte Yao et al

Thursday September 9, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Brunswig et al 10/854,929 SIU 102(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Examiner Name: HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hayes et al 10/922,673 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Examiner Name: SIM, YONG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Rueger et al 11/146,735 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Examiner Name: LEE, GILBERT Y

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Guenther et al 11/018,628 PATE III 103(a) Wilson Sporting Goods Co. Examiner Name: WONG, STEVEN B

Ex Parte Holmes et al 09/939,535 SILVERBERG 103(a) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP Examiner Name: STEPHENS, JACQUELINE P

Ex Parte Ito et al 10/833,337 SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP Examiner Name: REICHLE, KARIN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bunker et al 10/907,773 KERINS 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) Examiner Name: RALIS, STEPHEN J

VACATED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Fatula 10/735,938 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KUNZLER NEEDHAM MASSEY & THORPE Examiner Name: TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

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).

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Weiss et al

AFFIRMED

Ex parte AGRIPA HOLDINGS LTD.
Ex Parte Barsness et al
Ex Parte Bassett et al
Ex Parte Fencl
Ex Parte Haseltine et al
Ex Parte Hoke et al
Ex Parte Krebs et al
Ex Parte Oppert et al
Ex Parte Reppy et al
Ex Parte Roth et al
Ex Parte Shabtay et al
Ex Parte Wu et al
Ex Parte Zerbe et al

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte Evrard et al

REMAND

Ex Parte Baker et al
Ex Parte Hermann

Wednesday September 8, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cerny et al 10/332,494 GRIMES 102(b) SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP Examiner Name: KRUSE, DAVID H

Ex Parte Wheeler et al 11/405,128 SPIEGEL 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Examiner Name: STAPLES, MARK

It is also well settled that "the reference must be enabling and describe the applicant's claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "One shows that one is 'in possession' of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious." Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

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

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zimmermann et al 10/920,826 HANLON 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC Examiner Name: ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Whitmyer 11/566,043 JEFFERY 102(b) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC Examiner Name: CHEN, TE Y

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Wolters et al 09/727,134 BAHR 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY Examiner Name: FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bindas 11/074,280 O’NEILL 103(a) WILLIAM M. HOBBY, III Examiner Name: LEWIS, KIM M

Ex Parte Cazares et al 10/995,704 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK Examiner Name: BERTRAM, ERIC D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Holland et al 11/543,615 NAGUMO 102(b)/102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC Examiner Name: ROBINSON, LAUREN E

It is improper to read limitations into the claims from the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

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

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3737
Ex parte SIERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,601 5,816,918
TURNER 102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: TIPS/BALLY Third Party Requester: Marc S. Kaufman NIXON PEABODY, LLP Examiner Name: HARRISON, JESSICA

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1772
Ex parte Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,001 6,919,122 LANE 103(a) Jason E. Pauls Foley & Lardner Mark D. Swanson Pauley, Peterson & Erickson Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Bunn et al
Ex Parte Cox
Ex Parte Denifl et al
Ex Parte Hung
Ex Parte Stephens et al
Ex Parte Wan et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Gelhaus et al
Ex Parte Wilms et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Antonini
Ex Parte Cauthen et al
Ex Parte Horak et al
Ex Parte Pinizzotto
Ex parte RANCO, INC.
Ex Parte Sakoh et al
Ex Parte Scales et al
Ex Parte Simon
Ex Parte Sydon et al
Ex Parte Ulf et al
Ex Parte Wagner et al
Ex Parte YOUMAN et al

REMANDED

Ex Parte Banna et al
Ex Parte Martin et al

Monday September 6, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Levin et al 11/194,423 KRATZ 103(a) LADAS & PARRY LLP Examiner Name: KOCH, GEORGE R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Wittsche 11/027,640 CRAWFORD 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY Examiner Name: SHAH, AMEE A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2607
Ex parte TGIP, INC. Appellant 90/007,436 5,577,109 BOALICK 103(a) FOR APPELLANT: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON 15950 DALLAS PARKWAY Examiner Name: FOSTER, ROLAND G

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1755
Ex parte VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.(a subsidiary of C.R. BARD, INC.), Appellant 90/010,211 7,247,150 DELMENDO 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP Examiner Name: MARCANTONI, PAUL D

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Flentye et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Duong
Ex Parte Flentye et al
Ex Parte Hans et al
Ex Parte High

Friday September 3, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cole et al 10/802,796 PRATS 101/112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Examiner Name: HA, JULIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thai et al 10/865,265 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Examiner Name: NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dobbs et al 11/156,355 STAICOVICI Opinion Dissenting KERINS 103(a) DUNLAP CODDING, P.C. Examiner Name: PARSLEY, DAVID J

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3651
Ex parte HOGUE INDUSTRIES LLC Appellant 90/008,119 6,991,423 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) SIMPLE IP LAW, P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Gavin N. Manning OYEN WIGGS GREEN & MUTALA LLP Examiner Name: KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3651
Ex parte HOGUE INDUSTRIES LLC Appellant 90/008,968 7,201,554 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) SIMPLE IP LAW, P.C. Third Party Requester Gavin N. Manning OYEN WIGGS GREEN & MUTALA LLP Examiner Name: KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

A witness’ interest is important in determining the weight to be given declaration evidence submitted during ex parte patent examination. Accord, Pargon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Lab., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Holding inequitable conduct resulted from the failure to disclose to the examiner that the declarants who testified supporting patentability had a significant financial stake in the assignee of the invention.); Refac Int’l, Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that applicant committed inequitable conduct in withholding information on the inventor’s significant prior connections with the affiants - the prior connection was considered material in deciding the weight to be given affidavits supporting the patentability of the claims).

Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993). .410, 2133.03(e)(2)

Refac Int’l Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 38 USPQ2d 1665 (Fed. Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .410

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Adams
Ex Parte Chappa
Ex Parte Farmer et al
Ex Parte Hendren et al
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Mason
Ex Parte Nishitani
Ex Parte Utsugi

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Kerr-Maddox et al
Ex Parte SALLIN et al

Thursday September 2, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Chang et al 11/332,547 FREDMAN 112(1) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP Examiner Name: AEDER, SEAN E

Falko-Gunter teaches that “we hold that where, as in this case, accessible literature sources clearly provided, as of the relevant date, genes and their nucleotide sequences (here ‘essential genes’), satisfaction of the written description requirement does not require either the recitation or incorporation by reference (where permitted) of such genes and sequences.” Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Ex Parte Marchenko et al 11/079,392 FREDMAN 103(a) CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP ACS LLC Examiner Name: CHOWDHURY, IQBAL HOSSAIN

Ex Parte Mashko et al 11/002,141 FREDMAN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Examiner Name: JOIKE, MICHELE K.

Ex Parte Yamazaki 11/514,905 McCOLLUM 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. Examiner Name: DESAI, RITA J.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Abraham-Fuchs et al 09/742,268 LORIN 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP Examiner Name: FRENEL, VANEL

Ex Parte Malden et al 10/277,549 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP Examiner Name: OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2736
Ex parte DONNELLY CORPORATION Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,519 6,222,447 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) APPELLANT / PATENT OWNER: Frederick S. Burkhart VAN DYKE GARDNER LINN & BURKHART THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: William H. Mandir Sughrue Mion, PLLC Examiner Name: FOSTER, ROLAND G

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2736
Ex parte DONNELLY CORPORATION Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,520 5,949,331 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) APPELLANT / PATENT OWNER: Frederick S. Burkhart VAN DYKE GARDNER LINN & BURKHART THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: William H. Mandir Sughrue Mion, PLLC Examiner Name: FOSTER, ROLAND G

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2822
Ex parte MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. 90/007,877 6,483,183 BOALICK 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP Examiner Name: KIELIN, ERIK J

REQUEST TO MODIFY DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2761
Ex parte MICHAEL C. RYAN, Appellant 90/007,920 5,913,180 DELMENDO 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: DAVIS, BROWN, KOEHN, SHORS & ROBERTS, P.C. Examiner Name: LEWIS, AARON J

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte KOTZIN et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bampton et al
Ex Parte Cassel et al
Ex Parte Cerbini et al
Ex Parte Cirigliano et al
Ex Parte Dieckmann et al
Ex Parte Farrow
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Kossler et al
Ex Parte Kin Law
Ex Parte Lencki et al
Ex Parte Norman
Ex Parte Palsule et al
Ex Parte Pous et al
Ex Parte Simon
Ex Parte Speiser et al
Ex Parte Teres
Ex Parte Tutuncu et al