Monday October 18, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gore 11/254,273 GARRIS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

Ex Parte Groh et al 11/130,764 TIMM 103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER YANG, JIE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Beesley et al 10/767,454 HOMERE 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Odorzynski 10/334,931 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Greif et al 10/362,038 ADAMS 103(a) BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Bourilkov et al 10/382,106 RIGGIERO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON (BO) EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mannella 10/797,884 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO

Ex Parte Vogan 11/238,870 O’NEILL 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3736
Ex parte ARTEMIS MEDICAL, INC., Appellant 90/009,167 6,730,042 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THOMPSON HINE, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOUGLAS R. HANSCOM JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2182
Ex parte FLEETWOOD GROUP, INC. 90/008,539 Re. 35,449 EASTHOM 103(a) Frederick S. Burkhart Van Dyke Gardner Linn & Burkhart Third-Party Requester Wesley W. Whitmeyer, Jr. St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens, LLC EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER ELAMIN, ABDELMONIEM I

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dufresne et al 10/993,149 EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A
Ex Parte Ebel 10/461,701 EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S
Ex Parte GOELET et al 09/258,132 EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J
Ex Parte Jahn et al 10/209,351 EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
Ex Parte Jud et al 10/250,963 EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
Ex Parte Matus 11/164,050 EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
Ex Parte Tseng et al 10/868,947 EXAMINER JUEDES, AMY E

Friday October 15, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Landingham 10/260,121 KIMLIN 103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NAT'L SECURITY, LLC EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Takeuchi 10/559,870 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER

Ex Parte LeDoux et al 10/908,488 MacDONALD 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Nada 10/977,627 HORNER 251 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE

The Federal Circuit has described application of the recapture rule as “a three-step process”:

(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.

No. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02

Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . 1412.02

It is clear that in determining whether “surrender” of subject matter has occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee’s amendment or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent. This is because the recapture rule is aimed at ensuring that the public can rely on a patentee’s admission during prosecution of an original patent. … Thus, if the objective public observer can discern a surrender of subject matter during the prosecution of an original patent in order to overcome prior art and obtain the patent, then the recapture rule should prevent the reissuing of that patent to claim the surrendered subject matter.

Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

A surrender can occur by argument as well as by amendment. Hester [Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc.], 142 F.3d [1472,] 1480-84 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)] (noting the statement in Clement that “‘[t]o determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection’ ” (quoting [In re] Clement, 131 F.3d [1464,] 1469 [(Fed. Cir. 1997)]) (emphasis added in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1480)). We stated in Hester that, like prosecution history estoppel, “unmistakable assertions made to the Patent Office in support of patentability” “can give rise to a surrender for purposes of the recapture rule.” Id. at 1482.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

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

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

Ex Parte Pagliari et al 10/215,877 FETTING 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER LONG, FONYA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lengeling 10/334,252 LUCAS 103(a) APPLE INC./BSTZBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

Ex Parte Stolowitz et al 10/885,960 FETTING 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC EXAMINER CRAIG, DWIN M

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Khayrallah et al 10/427,872 KRIVAK 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER
PAN, YUWEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Laskin et al 101709,360 FETTING 103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP EXAMINER KANG, IRENE S

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brandt et al EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
Ex Parte Gray et al EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M
Ex Parte Kropaczek et al EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH
Ex Parte Letant et al EXAMINER KIM, KIHO
Ex Parte Raivisto et al EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
Ex Parte Sugahara EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG

VACATED

Ex Parte Hardwick et al EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte Richert et al EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T

GRANTED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Davis et al EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A

Thursday October 14, 2010

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Li et al 10/930,393 BAUMEISTER 103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE , P.A. EXAMINER WRIGHT, ANDREW D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Onoda et al 10/936,592 O’NEILL 102(e) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WONG, JEFFREY KEITH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Emami et al 10/331,696 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ashley EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
Ex Parte Bahnsen et al EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T
Ex Parte Cheng EXAMINER STERRETT, JEFFREY L
Ex Parte Constantz et al EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M
Ex Parte Hayes et al EXAMINER LY, NGHI H
Ex Parte Pirro et al EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

Wednesday October 13, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Knapp 11/598,903 GRIMES 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

Ex Parte Mauritz 11/211,846 GREEN 103(a) ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS INC. EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

Ex Parte Wang et al 11/008,929 FREDMAN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Shen et al 10/185,905 MacDONALD 103(a) DLA PIPER LLP (US) EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

Ex Parte Anastas 10/924,674 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WALTHALL, ALLISON N

Ex Parte Luciano et al 10/932,867 MacDONALD 102(e) Lexmark International, Inc. EXAMINER GARCIA, GABRIEL I

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Vedders 10/770,964 MacDONALD 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LUKS, JEREMY AUSTIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Cohen et al 11/084,317 McCARTHY 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

Ex Parte Lee 11/120,906 O’NEILL 103(a) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

Ex Parte Pollock 11/258,494 BAHR 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

Ex Parte Ramalingam et al 11/001,714 NAPPI 103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PHAN, THIEM D

see also In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972) (“Where . . . the prior art disclosure suggests the outer limits of the range of suitable values, and that the optimum resides within that range, and where there are indications elsewhere that in fact the optimum should be sought within that range, the determination of optimum values outside that range may not be obvious.”).

Ex Parte Stadelhofer 10/848,517 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Achacoso et al 10/375,358 HOMERE 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Ma 10/461,012 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CHRISTOPHER C. WINSLADE MCANDREWS HELD AND MALLOY, LTD. EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2722
Ex parte RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/007,187 5,726,772 TORCZON Ipsis verbis test/Omitted element test For the patentee, Michael Greenbaum, BLANK ROME LLP For the requester, John D. Vandenberg, KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER LEE, CHEUKFAN

The "omitted element" test, sometimes called the "essential element" test has been broadly criticized. It is instructive that one of the most widely vilified decisions in this context, Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., which affirmed an invalidity based on the absence of a key element, has never been overturned. How can this apparent paradox be explained? The key lies in the caution repeated in our decision: written description determinations are so fact-specific that it is hazardous to read too much into any precedent. The Gentry Gallery court had to determine whether a finding that the specification as a whole conveyed a requirement for a specific element was clearly erroneous. In determining it was not, the court expressly rejected an over-reading of its holding:

It is a truism that a claim need not be limited to a preferred embodiment. However, in a given case, the scope of the right to exclude may be limited by a narrow disclosure.

Critics of Gentry Gallery have often converted the decision into a straw-man for criticism. Any opinion when so caricatured can be made to seem foolish. When the opinion is read narrowly, in light of the specific facts of the case, as the court intended, it remains a viable (albeit limited) opinion.

Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498(Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Beck EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
Ex Parte Faltesek et al EXAMINER LEE, PING
Ex Parte Feiste et al EXAMINER HUISMAN, DAVID J
Ex Parte von Foerster EXAMINER LARSON, JUSTIN MATTHEW
Ex Parte Kakiuchi et al EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
Ex Parte Kamimura et al EXAMINER JULES, FRANTZ F
Ex Parte Liu et al EXAMINER David England
Ex Parte Londono EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN
Ex Parte Palmer EXAMINER LABBEES, EDNY
Ex Parte Seymour et al EXAMINER CORDRAY, DENNIS R

Friday October 8, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Case et al 11/486,254 MILLS 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER LIU, SUE XU

Ex Parte Rosen 10/876,491 WALSH 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC ROBERT D. FISH EXAMINER ROBERTS, LEZAH

Ex Parte Zebedee et al 12/077,046 PRATS 102(e)/103(a) JOSEPH E. MUETH, ESQ. EXAMINER LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mohamed 10/452,341 BAHR 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Song et al 11/094,498 FREDMAN 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any … alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed .…”)

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Rogers et al 10/764,237 HORNER 102(b)/102(e) ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. JOHN F. LETCHFORD EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]here a claim recites a function, but then goes on to elaborate sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to perform entirely the recited function, the claim is not in means-plus-function format” even if the claim uses the term “means.”).

Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 44 USPQ2d 1103 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2181

See In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973) (stating that evidence of commercial success, unexpected results, etc. is not pertinent to a rejection made under § 102(b), and that such evidence “no matter how striking could not overcome a rejection of a claim based on its lack of novelty. It simply is not relevant or material to that point.”).

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

Thursday October 7, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Berg et al 10/856,564 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Coutts et al 09/884,523 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL CHAN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER DENNISON, JERRY B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/857,188 COLAIANNI 102(b)/112(1) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Punaganti Venkata et al 10/700,365 HOMERE 101/102(e)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER LIU, LIN

We also note that the nominal recitation to a “system” in the preamble does not limit the body of the claim as it only states the invention’s purpose or intended use. See Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc., v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).3 Additionally, even if the preamble to the “system” were given weight and thus literally fit within the machine or an article of manufacture categories set forth in § 101, that alone is not sufficient to determine if claim 8 recites statutory subject matter. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Claim 8 must be construed in its entirety, and, as discussed above, the claim’s body recites nothing more than software.

3 See also Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., No. 2009-1323, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2010) (citations omitted) (noting that a preamble that “merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that has completely set forth the invention” has no separate limiting effect).

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

Wednesday October 6, 2010

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Steele et al 10/320,461 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Friedman et al 10/748,440 McCARTHY 103(a) WYATT, GERBER & O’ROURKE LLP EXAMINER BRAHAN, THOMAS J

Ex Parte Fukui 10/204,977 O’NEILL 103(a) SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Knopp et al 10/958,710 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K

Further, it is also necessary for the Examiner to properly construe what an applied reference fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982).

Ex Parte Michelson 10/911,918 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA

See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

Ex Parte Swiecicki et al 10/742,236 O’NEILL 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

VACATED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte MacKenzie et al 10/183,900 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER ABYANEH, ALI S

The Supreme Court has held that “[e]xcluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “An idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id. at 185 (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507, 22 L.Ed. 410 (1874); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“[M]ental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.”); see also id. at 71 (“It is conceded that one may not patent an idea.”).

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

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

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

As the unpatentability of abstract ideas was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski (2010), clever claim drafting involving the nominal addition of generic structures cannot circumvent the principles articulated by the Court. That is, even when a claim appears to apply an idea or concept in combination with a nominal claim to generic structure(s), one must ensure that it does not in reality seek patent protection for that idea in the abstract. Cf. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191.

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2851
Ex parte DIRECT IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC. 90/008,211 6,095,628 EASTHOM 305/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Gray Robinson ATTN: STEFAN V. STEIN/ IP DEPT. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Sandra L. Etherton ETHERTON LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER MAHONEY, CHRISTOPHER E

See Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546 (.BPAI 1989) (holding that the addition of a process claim during reexamination impermissibly broadened the scope of original product claims in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 305).

Wikdahl, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . 1412.02, 1412.03, 2258

Tuesday October 5, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Laufer et al 10/954,895 FREDMAN 112(1) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER KAM, CHIH MIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thompson et al 10/685,785 TIMM 103(a) PRAXAIR, INC. EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In evaluating the prior art references for obviousness, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references, but also any inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, (CCPA 1968).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Preda, In re, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.01

Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971).

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2123, 2144.08

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gray et al 10/798,541 HORNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2684
Ex parte Rohm Co., Ltd. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,754 6,535,719 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROHM CO., LTD. C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BENJAMIN E. URCIA BACON & THOMAS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER TRAN, PABLO N

See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2141.03

Friday October 1, 2010

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Honkala et al 10/612,342 HAIRSTON 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. EXAMINER DUONG, CHRISTINE T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gates 09/534,814 5,731,565 08/507,971 BARRETT 251/112(1)/103(a) Allan M. Lowe Lowe Hauptman Gopstein Gilman & Berner, LLP EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

Thursday September 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Li et al 11/125,297 SCHEINER 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S

Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/274,887 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP ELAN PHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMIT EXAMINER GREENE, IVAN A

Ex Parte Marquart et al 11/099,854 SCHEINER 103(a) TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS, L.L.P EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A

Ex Parte Niklason et al 10/388,588 SPIEGEL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, QUANG

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fuller et al 10/978,981 HANLON 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

Ex Parte Shannon et al 10/823,371 KRATZ 103(a) MOSER IP LAW GROUP / APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Simelius et al 10/645,687 HUGHES 103(a) Harrington & Smith, PC EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Wilson et al 10/330,944 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) WILLIAM M. LEE, JR.BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

Ex Parte Harter et al 10/444,468 COURTENAY 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

Ex Parte Houldsworth 10/218,364 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LIN, JASON K

Ex Parte Jaye 10/151,794 SAADAT 103(a) BEH INVESTMENTS LLC EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q

Ex Parte Kwan 10/287,287 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Brake Hughes PLC C/O Intellevate EXAMINER CHOU, ALBERT T

Ex Parte Shanbhag 10/289,767 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER WILSON, ROBERT W

On the record before us, addressing the Examiner’s provisional rejections would be premature. See Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Seo 10/981,533 HAIRSTON 103(a) STANZIONE & KIM, LLP EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

Ex Parte Bishop et al 10/719,476 HAIRSTON 103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT EXAMINER DEANE JR, WILLIAM J

Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/806,980 SAADAT 103(a) CRAIN, CATON & JAMES EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU K

Ex Parte Soto et al 10/886,514 HAIRSTON 103(a) Alexander Soto EXAMINER LI, SHI K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoganandan et al 11/020,998 KRIVAK 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TSIDULKO, MARK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peoples 11/448,936 McCARTHY 103(a) MYRON AMER P.C. EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Schwemberger et al 11/206,298 McCARTHY 102(b) WELSH & FLAXMAN LLC EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

Ex Parte Tornier 10/189,630 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW

Ex Parte Bourne et al 10/434,526 McCARTHY 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Weers et al 10/982,191 SCHEINER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NOVARTIS EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

ENABLEMENT

[A] specification 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).

[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, 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 . . . this includes, of course, 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).

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

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

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hesdahl et al 10/874,149 MARTIN 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1636
Ex parte COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,247 90/008,096 6,573,099 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR APPELLANT: GARY J. GERSHIK COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ERICH E. VEITENHEIMER COOLEY GODWARD, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1773
HITACHI METALS, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. SENJU METAL INDUSTRY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,105 6,387,499 BOALICK 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. Third Party Requester: JIA WEI HUANG JC PATENTS EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER KILIMAN, LESZEK B

In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962) (Prior art reference disclosing limited genus of 20 compounds rendered every species within the genus anticipated).

Petering, In re, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . 2131.02, 2131.03, 2144.08

Therefore, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

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

However, a patentability determination of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2604
Ex parte LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/008,721 4,439,759 SIU 102(e) For Patent Owner: Lucent Technologies, Inc. For Third Party Requester: Kenneth L. Cage McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER CURTIS, MARSHALL M

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Gast et al
Ex Parte Hsiun et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Mukherjee et al
Ex Parte Pfrengle et al
Ex Parte Zhang et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ackerman et al
Ex Parte Bangalore et al
Ex Parte Baranczyk et al
Ex Parte Barker
Ex Parte Boser
Ex Parte Chinchwadkar et al
Ex Parte Conti
Ex Parte Delbarre
Ex Parte Duerbaum et al
Ex Parte Fahey et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Graf et al
Ex Parte Harvin et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hung et al
Ex Parte Isham et al
Ex Parte Le
Ex Parte Lee
Ex Parte Manchala
Ex Parte Nakura et al
Ex Parte Peterson
Ex Parte Rouse et al
Ex Parte Rovira
Ex Parte Seibert
Ex Parte Sen et al
Ex Parte Shang
Ex Parte Segletes et al
Ex Parte Snyder et al
Ex Parte Terrell et al
Ex Parte Thomas et al
Ex Parte Vanderheyden et al
Ex Parte Weber
Ex Parte Wicker
Ex Parte Yao

REHEARING

Ex Parte Glickman et al
Ex Parte Tomioka et al

REMAND

Ex Parte Simrell

Wednesday September 29, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fischer et al 11/030,244 SPIEGEL 103(a) BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dabouineau 10/889,116 SMITH 103(a) WILLIAM F. KOLALOWSKI, LLL DYKEMA GOSSETT PPLC EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T

Ex Parte Hammond 11/162,058 FRANKLIN 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S

Ex Parte Lee et al 11/326,895 COLAIANNI 103(a) LARSEN NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

Ex Parte Leucht et al 10/538,871 COLAIANNI 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER VO, HAI

Ex Parte Ludtke et al 10/548,723 GARRIS 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, KEVIN M

Ex Parte Miura et al 10/503,952 TIMM 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER VERDERAME, ANNA L

Ex Parte Sakaki et al 11/077,024 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH, STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER JOHNSTONE, ADRIENNE C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dalakuras et al 10/898,302 DANG 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER REHMAN, MOHAMMED H

Ex Parte Bartek et al 10/754,375 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP Steven M. Greenberg EXAMINER ULRICH, NICHOLAS S

Ex Parte Johnson et al 09/845,839 DANG 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Abbott 10/046,058 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ylitalo 10/209,195 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER VUONG, QUOCHIEN B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Furukawa et al 10/703,355 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Guernsey 11/160,224 PATE III 102(b) LAITRAM, L.L.C. EXAMINER PRAKASAM, RAMYA G

Ex Parte Wavering et al 10/929,318 PATE III 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Anstey et al 10/434,048 PATE III 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER YU, MICKEY

Ex Parte Carlson et al 11/168,614 McCARTHY 102(a)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER MORALES, JON ERIC C

Ex Parte Debaes et al 11/174,834 PATE III 102(b) JAMES C. WRAY EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

Ex Parte Perry et al 11/261,110 KERINS 102(e)/103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN

Ex Parte Sanders et al 11/095,947 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

Ex Parte Wood et al 10/804,458 PATE III 103(a) OBER/KALER c/o Royal W. Craig EXAMINER PICKETT, JOHN G

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Madsen et al 10/012,723 C. THOMAS 103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G

Ex Parte Hillier et al 11/013,149 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Turley et al 11/261,109 DIXON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARKER, AUTUMN H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kelly et al 10/646,685 SCHAFER 103(a)/112(1) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, LLP EXAMINER BROADHEAD, BRIAN J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dragoo et al 11/349,502 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

Ex Parte Santini et al 10/783,897 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

Furthermore, we must note where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a “minor capacity,” there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970).

Hoch, In re, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970) . . . . 706.02(j), 1207.03, 2144.08

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3616
ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,012 90/008,351 6,942,248 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requester: BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON, & LIONE EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER TO, TOAN C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2742
Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/006,976 90/007,092 90/007,884 5,255,309 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 WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3724
PROULX MANUFACTURING, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of KWIK PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,139 6,735,874 DELMENDO FOR PATENT OWNER: HESPOS & PORCO LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: RICHARD E. LYON, JR. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WATTS, DOUGLAS D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2100
SIGNATURE SYSTEMS, LLC Requester, Respondent v. AD. KEN CORP. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,043 6,721,743 TURNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) APPELLANT / PATENT OWNER: STAAS AND HALSEY LLP RESPONDENT / THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: BARKUME & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER WASSUM, LUKE S original EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3306
Ex parte SMITHS MEDICAL ASD, INC., Appellant & Patent Owner 90/010,350 5,562,631 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER YASKO JR, JOHN D

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Lang

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Benantar
Ex Parte Moore et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bosch et al
Ex Parte Uno et al