Tuesday September 28, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Friedmann et al 10/262,470 FRANKLIN 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORP. EXAMINER TOLBOT, BRIAN K

Ex Parte Wu et al 11/078,983 PAK 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

Ex Parte Zabetakis et al 10/956,593 HANLON 112(1)/103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

Ex Parte Medower et al 10/056,927 SMITH 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER OSELE, MARK A

Ex Parte McCormack et al 10/646,979 COLAIANNI 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gurney et al 10/335,018 DIXON 103(a) CAREY, RODREGUEZ, GREENBURG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

Claim Interpretation

The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Baumeister et al 10/624,353 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRISTENSON, SCOTT B

Ex Parte Xu et al 10/346,067 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

Ex Parte Yoshida 10/057,364 NAPPI 103(a) FRISHAUF, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK, PC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Narusawa 11/019,631 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X

Ex Parte Fredlund et al 10/397,825 NAPPI 103(a) MILTON S. SALES EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAU H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Rumsey et al 10/421,079 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER TRINH, HOA B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hirschenberger et al 10/284,023 CRAWFORD 102(b) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

Ex Parte Miller et al 10/078,687 CRAWFORD 103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

As such, in our view, the Examiner relied on hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. Our reviewing court has said, “[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.” W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). It is essential that "the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught at trial about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made . . . to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art." Id.

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)

Ex Parte Underwood et al 11/533,206 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Noe et al 10/793,472 BAHR 102(b) KF ROSS, PC EXAMINER HAMILTON, ISAAC N

Thus, for the term "immediately upstream" to mean that the sensor is merely between the mill and the trimming head, one would have to essentially ignore the term because a sensor upstream of the hot rolled mill will not be able to measure the edges and width of the not-yet-formed strip. See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim"); Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous).

Ex Parte Wessling, et al 10/808,677 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER ALI, MOHAMMAD M

We are guided by the principle that the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with sufficient specificity in order to constitute an anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the Atofina case, neither a disclosure of a broad range of 100-500° C., nor a disclosure of a narrower preferred range of 150-350° C., was found to anticipate a claimed range of 330-450° C., despite the former range fully encompassing the claimed range and the latter range having a degree of overlap with the claimed range. Id. The Federal Circuit noted, in this respect, that the disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points. Id.

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Yingst et al 11/013,813 CRAWFORD 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS, LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A

The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967).

Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

Ex Parte Courson et al 10/673,050 LORIN 112(1)/112(2)/101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M

In re Rundell, 18 CCPA 1290, 48 F.2d 958, 9 USPQ 220[, 221] [“Appellant argues that his rejected claims rest upon an automatic mechanism. The mere statement that a device is to be operated automatically instead of by hand, without a claim specifying any particular automatic mechanism, is not the statement of an invention. Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195; In re Gill, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 700, 36 F. (2d) 128.”]” In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958).

Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hori et al 10/148,178 FETTING 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER I AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Appellant & Patent Owner 90/007,626 5,916,912 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR THE APPELLANT: BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS, LLP FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HOFFMAN, WASSON & GILTER, PC EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER COOK, REBECCA

The intent or recognition that a method achieves a stated result does not change how the method is carried out. See also Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622, 2007 WL 5211675 (BPAI, Mar. 27, 2007) (Informative Opinion).

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Altwies et al
Ex Parte Begemann et al
Ex Parte Chandhoke et al
Ex Parte Laughlin
Ex Parte Schroeder et al
Ex Parte Wu et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Birmiwal et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Armangau
Ex Parte Arning et al
Ex Parte Babutzka et al
Ex Parte Bergman et al
Ex Parte Berstis et al
Ex Parte Chieu et al
Ex Parte Conrad et al
Ex Parte Cooper
Ex Parte Crichton et al
Ex Parte Cumpson et al
Ex Parte Doi et al
Ex Parte Doisaki et al
Ex Parte Eckert et al
Ex Parte Emery
Ex Parte Ghiware et al
Ex Parte Hall-Goulle et al
Ex Parte Imhof et al
Ex Parte Jeon et al
Ex Parte Kaisheva et al
Ex Parte Keresman et al
Ex Parte Klinedinst et al
Ex Parte Malkamaki et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Mikami
Ex Parte Patrick
Ex Parte Robertson et al
Ex Parte Robinson et al
Ex Parte Sander
Ex Parte Scheer
Ex Parte Sen et al
Ex Parte Shaheen et al
Ex Parte Sheppard
Ex Parte Thompson et al
Ex Parte Turgeon
Ex Parte Wilson
Ex Parte Xu et al
Ex Parte Zehner et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Vega

Monday September 27, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Tomes et al 10/367,417 McCOLLUM 103(a) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL

Ex Parte Ziegler et al 10/084,676 FREDMAN 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M

“The purpose of claims is not to explain the technology or how it works, but to state the legal boundaries of the patent grant. A claim is not ‘indefinite’ simply because it is hard to understand when viewed without benefit of the specification.” S3 Incorporated v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gehlsen et al 10/835,865 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Oliver 10/724,318 HUGHES 102(e) Hewlett Packard Company EXAMINER VU, THANH T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte McKenna et al 09/896,921 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, SUMAIYA A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Masuda et al 10/470,433 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALEY, JOSEPH R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Meier et al 10/964,111 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b) King & Spalding LLP EXAMINER BERHANE, ADOLPH D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brown et al 11/391,758 FISCHETTI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER DANNEMAN, PAUL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kolb 11/565,353 STAICOVICI 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Berndt et al 10/891,798 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(2)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, HEE SOO

“‘[T]he failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite.’ . . . [D]espite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.’” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can also be implied. Id. (holding that the term “anode gel” implicitly provided antecedent basis for a “zinc anode” in the same claim).

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(e)

Ex Parte Chan et al 10/726,766 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER NALVEN, ANDREW L

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rollins et al 10/160,590 HOFF 103(a) MOTOROLA INC EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bray 10/476,257 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P

VACATED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/965,183 THOMAS 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3661
Melvino Technologies, Ltd. Appellant and Patent Owner v. Transworks, Inc. Third Party Requestor 95/000,368 6,748,320 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER LOUIS JACQUES, JACQUES H

REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2202
Ex parte PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner
90/006,563 & 90/006,698 5,335,277 TURNER 102/103 Counsel for Patent Owner: Thomas J. Scott, Jr. Goodwin Procter LLP Counsel for Third Party Requester: A.J. Usher, IV Law Office of A.J. Usher EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER CAIN, DAVID C

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Baker et al
Ex Parte McKenna et al
Ex Parte Posnick

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Hughes
Ex Parte Petryk et al
Ex Parte Vanderby et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Acevedo
Ex Parte Butler
Ex Parte Craig et al
Ex Parte Denvir et al
Ex Parte Eriyama et al
Ex Parte Flores et al
Ex Parte GOUGH
Ex Parte Huang et al
Ex Parte Huynh
Ex Parte Kelkar et al
Ex Parte Li et al
Ex Parte Meurer
Ex Parte Mitjana
Ex Parte Musgrave et al
Ex Parte Nishino et al
Ex Parte Schnittgrund
Ex Parte Tsunogai
Ex Parte Yokoyama et al
Ex Parte Younes

Friday September 24, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Halasa et al 11/110,025 OWENS 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

Ex Parte Houzvicka et al 10/663,647 TIMM 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
BOYER, RANDY

Ex Parte Ried 10/432,538 FRANKLIN 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Rangarajan et al 10/161,504 HAIRSTON 101 THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (aff’d, Rule 36, Fed. Cir., slip op. 06-1003, June 2006).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01

Ex Parte Stewart 10/055,758 HAIRSTON 103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gross et al 10/843,705 MANTIS MERCADER obviousness type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

Ex Parte Lee 10/757,626 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Chang et al 09/851,553 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Vijay 10/948,441 SILVERBERG 103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM

Ex Parte Soper et al 11/009,699 LEE 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF RONALD M ANDERSON EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Susilo 10/951,724 SCHEINER 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER HENRY, MICHAEL C

“Whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon underlying factual findings.” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “[i]n patent prosecution, the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue.” Amgen, Inc. v. Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnote and citation omitted). Thus, “a presumption arises that both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled,” which appellants “can then overcome [ ] by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled.” Id.

Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 Fed. Cir. 1991). . . . . 2138, 2138.04, 2143.02, 2163, 2163.02, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b), 2411.01

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Delic et al 10/388,601 STEPHENS 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACHARD COMPANY EXAMINER AL HASHEMI, SANA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Schmitz 11/063,073 BAHR 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER SPAHN, GAY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kosmyna et al 10/254,121 SILVERBERG Opinion Concurring-in-part and Dissenting-in-part JENNIFER D. BAHR 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER CARTEGENA, MELVIN A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2877
Ex parte APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. & APPLIED MATERIALS ISRAEL, LTD., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,414 6,924,891 TURNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATENT OWNER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Robert Saltzberg MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER NGUYEN, SANG H

Claims in a reexamination proceeding should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, because applicants had the right to amend, whereas in a district court, "claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity." In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 n.*, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing ACH Hosp. Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

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

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Brower et al
Ex Parte Gonzalez-Rivas
Ex Parte Grob-Lipski
Ex Parte Tang-Taye

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Crenshaw et al
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall et al
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall
Ex Parte Fronk et al
Ex Parte Hofmann et al
Ex Parte Kesselmayer
Ex Parte Lafon
Ex Parte Llamas et al
Ex Parte OSTGAARD et al
Ex Parte Patek et al
Ex Parte Rubinstenn et al
Ex Parte Salacz et al
Ex Parte Wall et al
Ex Parte Woo et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Patek et al

REMANDED

Ex Parte Daskal

Thursday September 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Laurie 10/898,546 ADAMS 101/112(1)/103(a) MONSANTO COMPANY EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL

Ex Parte Singh et al 11/539,013 ADAMS 112(1) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER NWAONICHA, CHUKWUMA O

Ex Parte Studin 10/829,316 SCHEINER 103(a) STUART D. FRENKEL EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ahmed et al 10/211,162 SMITH 103(a)/102(e) JULIE POST H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M

Ex Parte McCormick 11/742,647 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

Ex Parte Roskam et al 10/754,224 SMITH 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

“[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 Ortega et al 11/166,029 NAGUMO 112(2)/102(b) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER MRUK, BRIAN P

As Judge Rich, writing for the predecessor to our reviewing court wrote nearly half a century ago, “[f]rom the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.” In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (CCPA 1963).

Papesch, In re, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) . . . . .716.02(a), 2141.02, 2144.08, 2144.09

Ex Parte Urban et al 11/206,912 SMITH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER AND NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHAN, SING P.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chatterjee et al 11/052,216 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M

Ex Parte Taylor 10/136,604 BARRY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

For example, a claim is indefinite "where the language 'said lever' appears in a dependent claim where no such 'lever' has been previously recited . . . ." Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (BPAI 1987).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Powers et al 10/387,148 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXAMINER MILLS, DONALD L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Uberti et al 10/469,835 ADAMS Opinion Concurring-in-part and Dissenting-in-part JEFFREY N. FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) DAWN MACPHERSON AT BIOMEASURE INC. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ban et al 11/306,780 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER CERULLO, JEREMY S

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gustave et al 10/970,137 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. EXAMINER HO, HUY C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Au et al 10/751,742 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DUNHAM, JASON B

Ex Parte Butler et al 10/106,461 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

Ex Parte Collins et al 11/033,533 TIERNEY 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY – MD 0750 EXAMINER ING, MATTHEW W

Ex Parte Hill et al 11/057,115 LORIN 103(a) MARK A. LITMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M

Ex Parte Ryan et al 10/707,5 10 FETTING 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

Ex Parte Subramanian et al 10/001,772 LORIN 103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C. EXAMINER
ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.

Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (BPAI 2005) (informative).

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte J-MED PHARMACEUTICALS Appellant & Patent Owner 90/008,111 6,270,796 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: FROMMER, LAWRENCE & HAUG FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STEVEN J. HULTQUIST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/TECHNOLOGY LAW EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER TRAVERS, R

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2601
Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/006,977 and 90/007,058 (merged) 5,259,023 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER:
REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:
DONALD E. STOUT, ESQ. ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER BROWN, THOMAS

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Burkhart et al
Ex Parte Chinner et al
Ex Parte Machhammer et al
Ex Parte Serra et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Parker

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Blagg et al
Ex Parte Case et al
Ex Parte Cottrell et al
Ex Parte Cuevas et al
Ex Parte Gahm et al
Ex Parte Elisabettini et al
Ex Parte Fleming et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Gessner et al
Ex Parte Gorissen
Ex Parte Gothoskar et al
Ex Parte Jain
Ex Parte Masuda et al
Ex Parte Miyake et al
Ex Parte Okamoto et al
Ex Parte Ostgaard et al
Ex Parte Post et al
Ex Parte Tobin et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Pederson et al

Wednesday September 22, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thorne et al 10/641,516 KRATZ 103(a) CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC. C/O CARDINAL LAW GROUP, LTD EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Griffith et al 10/326,386 SIU 101/112(1) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Chapon et al 11/395,823 HORNER 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Wiedeman et al 09/751,765SAADAT 103(a) K&A ASSOCIATESEXAMINER PEREZ, JULIO R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Clark 11/088,496 HORNER 102(b)/112(1) PRASS LLP EXAMINER MCCULLOUGH, MICHAEL C

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Birnbaum et al
Ex Parte Levin et al
Ex Parte Sennoun et al
Ex Parte Virtanen

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Corcoran
Ex Parte DeWitt et al
Ex Parte Yeager et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Awe et al
Ex Parte Babic et al
Ex Parte BURKE
Ex Parte Calvignac et al
Ex Parte Choi et al
Ex Parte Cutler et al
Ex Parte Deferme
Ex Parte Fisher et al
Ex Parte Fremantle et al
Ex Parte Hambright et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hong
Ex Parte Kuczynski et al
Ex Parte Kumar et al
Ex Parte Lalgudi et al
Ex Parte Laux et al
Ex Parte Liljedahl et al
Ex Parte Marce et al
Ex Parte Matsusue et al
Ex Parte Miller
Ex Parte Mueller
Ex Parte Nakamura
Ex Parte Nivaggioli et al
Ex Parte Procter et al
Ex Parte Robinson et al
Ex Parte Rutfors et al
Ex Parte Song et al
Ex Parte Vadella et al
Ex Parte Wagner et al
Ex Parte Yamamoto

REHEARING

Ex Parte Germeyer et al
Ex Parte McGarry et al

REMAND

Ex Parte Boulais et al

Tuesday September 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Askew et al 11/243,645 GRIMES 112(1) AMGEN INC. EXAMINER CHU, YONG LIANG

Ex Parte Curatolo et al 10/176,462 MILLS 103(a) PFIZER INC. EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G

Ex Parte Schindler et al 10/813,010 McCOLLUM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SACKEY, EBENEZER O

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Schmidt 11/119,564 TIMM 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E

Ex Parte Jerg 10/603,531 WARREN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER DRODGE, JOSEPH W

Ex Parte Majid et al 10/893,123 KRATZ 102(e)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER GRAY, JILL M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Riley 10/444,451 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIZK, SAMIR WADIE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brandt 10/142,470 CRAWFORD 101/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Elsa Keller Siemens Corporation EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

Ex Parte Darrell 10/615,582 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

Ex Parte Murchison 11/130,510 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY, LLP EXAMINER ARK, DARREN W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Krick et al 10/802,378 BAHR 103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER WILSON, GREGORY A

During prosecution, the threshold standard of ambiguity for indefiniteness is lower than it might be during litigation of an issued patent. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1212 (BPAI 2008).

Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (the standard for definiteness is whether "the claims at issue… are … sufficiently precise to permit a potential competitor to determine whether or not he is infringing").

Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 28 USPQ2d 1190 (Fed. Cir.1993). . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Bodlaender 10/520,199 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

In an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of review — we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). "The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2142

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Cobb 10/990,104 BARRETT 112(2)/103(a) Timothy E Siegel Patent Law, PLLC Mari Yamamoto EXAMINER HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kokubo et al 09/842,466 WALSH 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N

REVERSED

Ex Parte Beroza
Ex Parte Dibb et al
Ex Parte Dunn et al
Ex Parte Graute et al
Ex Parte Izumi et al
Ex Parte Rochon et al
Ex Parte Stahmann et al
Ex Parte Wimmer et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Kothandaraman et al
Ex Parte Pierre et al
Ex Parte Shluzas et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Armstrong
Ex Parte Binette et al
Ex Parte Bottcher
Ex Parte Coffy et al
Ex Parte DeBiccari et al
Ex Parte Godwin
Ex Parte Graham
Ex Parte Khan et al
Ex Parte Kirkland et al
Ex Parte Lunati
Ex Parte Martin
Ex Parte Maldonado Pacheco et al
Ex Parte Selden et al
Ex Parte Suzuki et al
Ex Parte Vook

Monday September 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wei et al 10/718,997 McCOLLUM 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Liu 10/667,883 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Lee et al 10/612,954 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) MANELLI DENISON & SELTER EXAMINER LE, LANA N

Ex Parte Rykowski et al 10/455,146 HAHN 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

Ex Parte Rykowski et al 10/653,559 HAHN 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Murray 10/937,561 GAUDETTE 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE

The Federal Circuit has interpreted the term “integrally formed” in an apparatus claim as a structural limitation. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-57 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In In re Morris, the court noted that the CCPA “had on several prior occasions interpreted the term ‘integral’ to cover more that [sic, than] a unitary construction” where the record did not provide a clear basis for limiting the term to a one piece construction, 127 F.3d at 1055-56 (citations omitted), and likewise declined to interpret the phrase “integrally formed” as limited to a single piece, inseparable structure:

The problem in this case is that the appellants failed to make their intended meaning explicitly clear. Even though the appellants implore us to interpret the claims in light of the specification, the specification fails to set forth the definition sought by the appellants. Nowhere in the technical description of the invention does the application use or define the phrase “integrally formed.” The phrase briefly appears in the “Summary of the Invention” and again in a description of the “advantages of the present invention.” In neither case is a drawing referenced or a precise definition given.

127 F.3d at 1056.

See also, Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys., 887 F.2d 1070, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (nothing of record limited “integral” to mean “of one-piece” construction).”)

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

See In re Winslow, 365 F.2d 1017, 1020 (CCPA 1966) (“We think the proper way to apply the 103 obviousness test to a case like this is to first picture the inventor as working in his shop with the prior art references—which he is presumed to know—hanging on the walls around him. . . . Section 103 requires us to presume full knowledge by the inventor of the prior art in the field of his endeavor.”).

Ex Parte Thiel 10/841,986 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Itwaru 10/081,265 FETTING 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C.
EXAMINER AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

Ex Parte Kobeh et al 10/673,431 LORIN 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER KAZIMI, HANI M

Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.").

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2876
Ex parte ScriptPro LLC, Patent Owner 90/007,995 6,155,485 ROBERTSON 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER LE, THIEN MINH

Any initial obviousness determination is reconsidered anew in view of the proffered evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052 (CCPA 1976); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 945 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ex Parte Quist, No. 2008-001183, at 10-11 (BPAI June 2, 2010) (Precedential)

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04

Eli Lilly, In re, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . .716.01(d), 716.02(b),716.02(c), 2142, 2144, 2144.08

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Willis

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Abdulrazik
Ex Parte Coolidge et al
Ex Parte Detweiler et al
Ex Parte Gruender
Ex Parte Hobbs et al
Ex Parte Jung et al
Ex Parte Lebing et al
Ex Parte Ohtsuki
Ex Parte Stahlmann et al
Ex Parte STEELE et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Pak et al

REMAND

Ex Parte Norden et al