REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/785,382 TURNER FETTING LORIN 103(a) FENWICK & WEST LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Voden 11/183,426 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
3711 Ex Parte Voden 11/824,369 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
This analysis amounts to application of a per se rule of obviousness, namely, that parts of a reference may always be rearranged as a general proposition in order to negate any patentable distinction. However, the Examiner provided no comparison between the facts of Japikse and the facts of the underlying application to explain how the holding of Japikse applies to the claims on appeal. As such, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection does not rest on a sound evidentiary basis because reliance on per se rules of obviousness is legally incorrect.
Japikse, In re, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Venkitaraman 10/107,861 SAADAT HAHN RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. Penny Tomko EXAMINER HAILE, FEBEN
2434 Ex Parte Kuno et al 10/855,579 JEFFERY FISCHETTI LORIN 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B
Where, as here, a claimed machine or article of manufacture involves a mathematical algorithm, we must therefore determine whether the scope of the claimed invention encompasses one of the judicially-created exceptions. Ex parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1031 (BPAI 2009) (precedential). We therefore must determine whether the claim is limited (1) “to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., ‘not a mere field-of-use label having no significance’)”, or (2) “so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either ‘in all fields’ of use of the algorithm or even in ‘only one field.’” Id.
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Thomas et al 11/178,740 MacDONALD HOFF NAPPI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER JAIN, ANKUR
2618 Ex Parte Bertino et al 10/924,542 SAADAT KRIVAK RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Forman 10/365,060 TURNER FISCHETTI LORIN 102(e)/112(1) 101
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2604 Ex parte MOTOROLA CORPORATION, INC. 90/009,509 5,157,391 EASTHOM SIU TURNER 102(b)/102(e) Motorola, Inc. Third Party Requester : Wilmer Hale DC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER MAGISTRE, DERVIS
See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.”).
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3402 Ex parte Smiths Interconnect Microwave Components, Inc. Appellant 90/007,118 5,332,981 MEDLEY LEE TURNER 102(b)/103(a) Ward & Olivo LLP Third Party Requester: C. Bruce Hamburg Jordan and Hamburg LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER NELLI, RAYMOND A
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD 90/008,145 6,002,457 SIU BOALICK EASTHOM 102(b)/102(a)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Counsel for Patent Owner: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLC Counsel for Third Party Requesters: Bruce K. Lagerman, Lagerman and Associates, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T
AFFIRMED
2872 Ex Parte Bender 11/183,481 MacDONALD EXAMINER CHAPEL, DEREK S
3738 Ex Parte Fallin et al 11/142,933 MILLS EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD
2811 Ex Parte Gan et al 11/143,405 BAUMEISTER EXAMINER HU, SHOUXIANG
3725 Ex Parte Hines et al 11/279,142 BAHR EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T
1612 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 11/437,833 PRATS EXAMINER HOLLOMAN, NANNETTE
2191 Ex Parte Kocev et al 09/944,776 HOMERE EXAMINER PHAM, THOMAS K
2873 Ex Parte Krawczak 10/822,430 SAADAT EXAMINER STULTZ, JESSICA T
1657 Ex Parte Langolf et al 11/640,431 LEBOVITZ EXAMINER GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN
2877 Ex Parte Luey et al 10/460,876 MacDONALD EXAMINER VALENTIN, JUAN D
2617 Ex Parte Malamud et al 10/927,842 KRIVAK EXAMINER BALAOING, ARIEL A
2192 Ex Parte McGrath et al 10/745,822 COURTENAY III EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN
1639 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/474,282 ADAMS EXAMINER LIU, SUE XU
3729 Ex Parte Mori et al 11/489,992 TIERNEY EXAMINER CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
3693 Ex Parte Seifert et al 10/855,666 MOHANTY EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M
1627 Ex Parte Tsao 10/346,013 WALSH EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A
REHEARING
DENIED
1644 Ex Parte Kaisheva et al 10/291,528 LANE EXAMINER KIM, YUNSOO
2447 Ex Parte Rajsic 10/814,330 HAIRSTON EXAMINER MOORE JR, MICHAEL J
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday December 13, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Hussa et al 11/193,789 ADAMS GRIMES WALSH 102(b) CYTYC CORPORATION EXAMINER YAO, LEI
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Bhide et al 10/729,166 BLANKENSHIP COURTENAY III DANG 102(b) Frederick W. Gibb, III McGinn & Gibb, PLLC EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dunning et al 10/401,940 CRAWFORD FETTING MOHANTY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Jaunzemis et al 11/319,957 BAHR HORNER SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATENT VENTURE GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUNG V
"[T]he Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974). Once the PTO has made out a prima facie case that the applicant's claimed product and the product of the prior art reasonably appear to be the same, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
3742 Ex Parte Nordstrom et al 11/418,994 O’NEILL BARRETT KERINS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL A. NELSON TEKTRONIX, INC. EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
The limit on what a reference discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the art is what it fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982) (reference is prior art not only for specifically disclosed embodiments, but also all that it fairly teaches). Moreover, the overly broad interpretation of “socket”, to be satisfied by a spring-biased plunger 100, as the Examiner suggests (see, Ans. 4), would eviscerate the meaning of the term socket because it would mean that any component could satisfy that probe feature. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).
3711 Ex Parte Voden 10/908,842 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 112(1)/103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Seligmann et al 10/891,804 HAHN BAUMEISTER, Concurring HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) Avaya DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER'S REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1802 Ex parte COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Appellants 90/008,305 4,940,658 SPIEGEL ADAMS DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner Peter F. Weinberg GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP cc: Third Party Requester Peng Cheng MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER SCHEINER, TONI R
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J
AFFIRMED
2626 Ex Parte Browning 10/132,052 HAHN EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS
2421 Ex Parte Cormack et al 10/703,319 SAADAT EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
3623 Ex Parte Fliess et al 10/185,739 CRAWFORD EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
2622 Ex Parte Kehtarnavaz et al 10/325,310 MacDONALD EXAMINER BEMBEN, RICHARD M
3727 Ex Parte Roberts et al 10/991,911 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
1781 Ex Parte Tucker et al 10/741,459 ADAMS EXAMINER STULII, VERA
3625 Ex Parte Westphal et al 11/699,147 CRAWFORD EXAMINER ALLEN, WILLIAM J
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Hussa et al 11/193,789 ADAMS GRIMES WALSH 102(b) CYTYC CORPORATION EXAMINER YAO, LEI
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Bhide et al 10/729,166 BLANKENSHIP COURTENAY III DANG 102(b) Frederick W. Gibb, III McGinn & Gibb, PLLC EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dunning et al 10/401,940 CRAWFORD FETTING MOHANTY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Jaunzemis et al 11/319,957 BAHR HORNER SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATENT VENTURE GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUNG V
"[T]he Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974). Once the PTO has made out a prima facie case that the applicant's claimed product and the product of the prior art reasonably appear to be the same, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
3742 Ex Parte Nordstrom et al 11/418,994 O’NEILL BARRETT KERINS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL A. NELSON TEKTRONIX, INC. EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
The limit on what a reference discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the art is what it fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982) (reference is prior art not only for specifically disclosed embodiments, but also all that it fairly teaches). Moreover, the overly broad interpretation of “socket”, to be satisfied by a spring-biased plunger 100, as the Examiner suggests (see, Ans. 4), would eviscerate the meaning of the term socket because it would mean that any component could satisfy that probe feature. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).
3711 Ex Parte Voden 10/908,842 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 112(1)/103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Seligmann et al 10/891,804 HAHN BAUMEISTER, Concurring HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) Avaya DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER'S REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1802 Ex parte COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Appellants 90/008,305 4,940,658 SPIEGEL ADAMS DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner Peter F. Weinberg GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP cc: Third Party Requester Peng Cheng MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER SCHEINER, TONI R
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J
AFFIRMED
2626 Ex Parte Browning 10/132,052 HAHN EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS
2421 Ex Parte Cormack et al 10/703,319 SAADAT EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
3623 Ex Parte Fliess et al 10/185,739 CRAWFORD EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
2622 Ex Parte Kehtarnavaz et al 10/325,310 MacDONALD EXAMINER BEMBEN, RICHARD M
3727 Ex Parte Roberts et al 10/991,911 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
1781 Ex Parte Tucker et al 10/741,459 ADAMS EXAMINER STULII, VERA
3625 Ex Parte Westphal et al 11/699,147 CRAWFORD EXAMINER ALLEN, WILLIAM J
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday December 10, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Glaab et al 10/554,433 McCOLLUM GRIMES MILLS 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER EPPS -SMITH, JANET L
1636 Ex Parte Harrington et al 10/345,115 WALSH MILLS PRATS 102(e)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Takada 11/438,736 NAGUMO KIMLIN WARREN 102(e)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
It has also long been recognized that optimization of a result-effective variable cannot have been obvious if that variable was not recognized as being result-effective. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) ("This case, in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable, is another exception.").
Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kern et al 10/606,392 MacDONALD HOFF NAPPI 103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
2448 Ex Parte Koch 10/470,930 THOMAS BARRY BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wessel van Rooyen 11/010,847 NAPPI BAUMEISTER HAIRSTON 102(e)
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD. EXAMINER SHARMA, SUJATHA R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Seko 11/270,651 BAUMEISTER RUGGIERO WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Harper 11/487,927 O’NEILL McCARTHY SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a)WILLIAM HARPER EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Lyublinski et al 11/429,693 HANLON GARRIS KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a)
JOSEPH J. CRIMALDI, ESQ. ROETZEL & ANDRESS EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Ferman et al 09/823,377 NAPPI HAIRSTON SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP. EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11/140,789 McCARTHY BAHR SILVERBERG 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EXAMINER KERSHTEYN, IGOR
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2676 INTEL CORPORATION Respondent v. MICROUNITY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,089 6,643,765 EASTHOM MacDONALD MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) Leonard Guzman McDermot Will & Emery, LLP Third Party Requester: David L. McCombs Haynes and Boone, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER MONESTIME, MACKLY
For written description support, specific terms need not be recited in the supporting disclosure. In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973) (“The question, as we view it, is not whether ‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is support in the specification for employment of a term in a claim; is the concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”) “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
AFFIRMED
2614 Ex Parte Allen et al 10/441,725 NAPPI EXAMINER JAMAL, ALEXANDER
3634 Ex Parte Herran 11/443,598 BAHR EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M
3727 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11/248,087 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
1611 Ex Parte Sandel et al 10/722,928 McCOLLUM EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S
2454 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10/818227 NAPPI EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUSTIN
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Glaab et al 10/554,433 McCOLLUM GRIMES MILLS 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER EPPS -SMITH, JANET L
1636 Ex Parte Harrington et al 10/345,115 WALSH MILLS PRATS 102(e)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Takada 11/438,736 NAGUMO KIMLIN WARREN 102(e)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
It has also long been recognized that optimization of a result-effective variable cannot have been obvious if that variable was not recognized as being result-effective. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) ("This case, in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable, is another exception.").
Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kern et al 10/606,392 MacDONALD HOFF NAPPI 103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
2448 Ex Parte Koch 10/470,930 THOMAS BARRY BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wessel van Rooyen 11/010,847 NAPPI BAUMEISTER HAIRSTON 102(e)
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD. EXAMINER SHARMA, SUJATHA R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Seko 11/270,651 BAUMEISTER RUGGIERO WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Harper 11/487,927 O’NEILL McCARTHY SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a)WILLIAM HARPER EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Lyublinski et al 11/429,693 HANLON GARRIS KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a)
JOSEPH J. CRIMALDI, ESQ. ROETZEL & ANDRESS EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Ferman et al 09/823,377 NAPPI HAIRSTON SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP. EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11/140,789 McCARTHY BAHR SILVERBERG 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EXAMINER KERSHTEYN, IGOR
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2676 INTEL CORPORATION Respondent v. MICROUNITY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,089 6,643,765 EASTHOM MacDONALD MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) Leonard Guzman McDermot Will & Emery, LLP Third Party Requester: David L. McCombs Haynes and Boone, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER MONESTIME, MACKLY
For written description support, specific terms need not be recited in the supporting disclosure. In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973) (“The question, as we view it, is not whether ‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is support in the specification for employment of a term in a claim; is the concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”) “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
AFFIRMED
2614 Ex Parte Allen et al 10/441,725 NAPPI EXAMINER JAMAL, ALEXANDER
3634 Ex Parte Herran 11/443,598 BAHR EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M
3727 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11/248,087 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
1611 Ex Parte Sandel et al 10/722,928 McCOLLUM EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S
2454 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10/818227 NAPPI EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUSTIN
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thursday December 9, 2010
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Seifert 10/642,506 LUCAS STEPHENS THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LONG, ANDREA NATAE
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign et al., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/806,750 HOFF HAIRSTON MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONC/O INTELLEVATE EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte McPherson 10/871,214 HORNER McCARTHY O’NEILL 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Beaudry 11/024,567 HORNER SILVERBERG STAICOVICI 112(1)/112(2)
Laura A. Dable RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A
3727 Ex Parte Bottema 11/423,760 BAHR BARRETT HORNER 103(a) FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A
3736 Ex Parte Fraden 10/870,654 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Arvidson et al 10/298,129 KIMLIN PAK WARREN 103(a) DOW CORNING CORPORATION CO EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Richman 10/602,539 NAPPI MARTIN RUGGIERO 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LEE
“‘A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
3671 Ex Parte Beaufort et al 11/388,378 BAHR EXAMINER NGUYEN, MAI T
1773 Ex Parte Holmuhamedov 10/423,453 NAGUMO EXAMINER TURK, NEIL N
1632 Ex Parte Sambanis et al 11/230,363 LEBOVITZ EXAMINER SINGH, ANOOP KUMAR
1649 Ex Parte Sharif 12/425,774 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
2432 Ex Parte Stephenson 10/678,333 HAIRSTON EXAMINER LEMMA, SAMSON B
2452 Ex Parte Takano 10/388,355 LUCAS EXAMINER CHANG, JULIAN
2432 Ex Parte Thiele et al 10/650,440 HOMERE EXAMINER PERUNGAVOOR, VENKATANARAY
3718 Ex Parte Webb 10/288,298 MacDONALD EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H
REHEARING
DENIED
2186 Ex Parte Barda 10/836,521 LUCAS EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Seifert 10/642,506 LUCAS STEPHENS THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LONG, ANDREA NATAE
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign et al., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/806,750 HOFF HAIRSTON MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONC/O INTELLEVATE EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte McPherson 10/871,214 HORNER McCARTHY O’NEILL 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Beaudry 11/024,567 HORNER SILVERBERG STAICOVICI 112(1)/112(2)
Laura A. Dable RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A
3727 Ex Parte Bottema 11/423,760 BAHR BARRETT HORNER 103(a) FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A
3736 Ex Parte Fraden 10/870,654 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Arvidson et al 10/298,129 KIMLIN PAK WARREN 103(a) DOW CORNING CORPORATION CO EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Richman 10/602,539 NAPPI MARTIN RUGGIERO 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LEE
“‘A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144
AFFIRMED3671 Ex Parte Beaufort et al 11/388,378 BAHR EXAMINER NGUYEN, MAI T
1773 Ex Parte Holmuhamedov 10/423,453 NAGUMO EXAMINER TURK, NEIL N
1632 Ex Parte Sambanis et al 11/230,363 LEBOVITZ EXAMINER SINGH, ANOOP KUMAR
1649 Ex Parte Sharif 12/425,774 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
2432 Ex Parte Stephenson 10/678,333 HAIRSTON EXAMINER LEMMA, SAMSON B
2452 Ex Parte Takano 10/388,355 LUCAS EXAMINER CHANG, JULIAN
2432 Ex Parte Thiele et al 10/650,440 HOMERE EXAMINER PERUNGAVOOR, VENKATANARAY
3718 Ex Parte Webb 10/288,298 MacDONALD EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H
REHEARING
DENIED
2186 Ex Parte Barda 10/836,521 LUCAS EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wednesday December 8, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bruno et al 11/058,054 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a) WINSTEAD PC EXAMINER CHONG, KIMBERLY
Kubin stated that
[t]o differentiate between proper and improper applications of ‘obvious to try,’ this court outlined two classes of situations where ‘obvious to try’ is erroneously equated with obviousness under § 103. In the first class of cases, what would have been ‘obvious to try’ would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (citing 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
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Harrison et al 10/774,616 McCARTHY BARRETT PATE III 102(b) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Murray et al 11/383,201 SILVERBERG BARRETT KERINS 102(b)/103(a)
WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D
3741 Ex Parte Tiemann et al 10/524,523 PATE III HORNER STAICOVICI 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
However, the claimed invention “must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01
Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/301,918 SAADAT EASTHOM KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nevin 11/318,202 HORNER KERINS MCCARTHY 103(a) EXAMINER ROBINSON, DANIEL LEON EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ
DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J
“References relied upon to support a rejection under 35 USC 103 must provide an enabling disclosure, i.e., they must place the claimed invention in the possession of the public.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314
(CCPA 1979).
Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09
“Thus, upon careful reconsideration it is our view that if the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. [footnote omitted].” In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).
Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02,2144.09, 2145
AFFIRMED
3634 Ex Parte Barkman et al 11/071,813 SILVERBERG EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
1633 Ex Parte Gromeier et al 10/304,059 PRATS EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M
3732 Ex Parte Kuo 10/894,555 FREDMAN EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
2839 Ex Parte Lavie 10/644,416 SAADAT EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
3774 Ex Parte Lukic 10/101,378 MILLS EXAMINER STEWART, ALVIN J
3724 Ex Parte Pennell et al 11/524,148 STAICOVICI EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM
2872 Ex Parte Piehl et al 11/284,225 MacDONALD EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3673 Ex Parte Ricketts 11/343438 SILVERBERG EXAMINER CONLEY, FREDRICK C
REHEARING
DENIED
2445 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10/635,586 LUCAS EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bruno et al 11/058,054 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a) WINSTEAD PC EXAMINER CHONG, KIMBERLY
Kubin stated that
[t]o differentiate between proper and improper applications of ‘obvious to try,’ this court outlined two classes of situations where ‘obvious to try’ is erroneously equated with obviousness under § 103. In the first class of cases, what would have been ‘obvious to try’ would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (citing 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
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Harrison et al 10/774,616 McCARTHY BARRETT PATE III 102(b) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Murray et al 11/383,201 SILVERBERG BARRETT KERINS 102(b)/103(a)
WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D
3741 Ex Parte Tiemann et al 10/524,523 PATE III HORNER STAICOVICI 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER
However, the claimed invention “must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01
Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/301,918 SAADAT EASTHOM KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nevin 11/318,202 HORNER KERINS MCCARTHY 103(a) EXAMINER ROBINSON, DANIEL LEON EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ
DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J
“References relied upon to support a rejection under 35 USC 103 must provide an enabling disclosure, i.e., they must place the claimed invention in the possession of the public.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314
(CCPA 1979).
Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09
“Thus, upon careful reconsideration it is our view that if the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. [footnote omitted].” In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).
Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02,2144.09, 2145
AFFIRMED
3634 Ex Parte Barkman et al 11/071,813 SILVERBERG EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
1633 Ex Parte Gromeier et al 10/304,059 PRATS EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M
3732 Ex Parte Kuo 10/894,555 FREDMAN EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
2839 Ex Parte Lavie 10/644,416 SAADAT EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
3774 Ex Parte Lukic 10/101,378 MILLS EXAMINER STEWART, ALVIN J
3724 Ex Parte Pennell et al 11/524,148 STAICOVICI EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM
2872 Ex Parte Piehl et al 11/284,225 MacDONALD EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3673 Ex Parte Ricketts 11/343438 SILVERBERG EXAMINER CONLEY, FREDRICK C
REHEARING
DENIED
2445 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10/635,586 LUCAS EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tuesday December 7, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Khodadoust 10/029,471 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CLARK & ELBING LLP EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K
1648 Ex Parte Margolis et al 10/473,560 ADAMS MILLS PRATS 112(1) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER PENG, BO
1613 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/850,121 MILLS ADAMS PRATS 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V
1613 Ex Parte Schwarz et al 10/175,526 ADAMS MILLS PRATS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Adcox et al 10/420,024 HOFF HAIRSTON RUGGIERO 102(e) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Davison et al 10/713,820 FREDMAN ADAMS SPIEGEL 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, VI X
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte TERASHIMA et al 08/964,257 MacDONALD NAPPI SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Klearman et al 11/081,050 McCARTHY KERINS O’NEILL 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3737 Ex Parte Viswanathan 10/975,029 BAHR HORNER PATE III 112(2)/102(b)
HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER LAMPRECHT, JOEL
AFFIRMED
2876 Ex Parte Alvarez et al 10/966,879 EXAMINER HAUPT, KRISTY A
1723 Ex Parte Edlund et al 10/412,709 EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
1621 Ex Parte McDaniel et al 11/607,349 EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
3623 Ex Parte Casati et al 10/177,423 EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V
1628 Ex Parte Towner et al 11/460,866 EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
3711 Ex Parte Ward et al 10/422,395 EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R
REHEARING
DENIED
2483 Ex Parte Gu et al 10/448,810 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Khodadoust 10/029,471 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CLARK & ELBING LLP EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K
1648 Ex Parte Margolis et al 10/473,560 ADAMS MILLS PRATS 112(1) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER PENG, BO
1613 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/850,121 MILLS ADAMS PRATS 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V
1613 Ex Parte Schwarz et al 10/175,526 ADAMS MILLS PRATS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Adcox et al 10/420,024 HOFF HAIRSTON RUGGIERO 102(e) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Davison et al 10/713,820 FREDMAN ADAMS SPIEGEL 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, VI X
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte TERASHIMA et al 08/964,257 MacDONALD NAPPI SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Klearman et al 11/081,050 McCARTHY KERINS O’NEILL 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3737 Ex Parte Viswanathan 10/975,029 BAHR HORNER PATE III 112(2)/102(b)
HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER LAMPRECHT, JOEL
AFFIRMED
2876 Ex Parte Alvarez et al 10/966,879 EXAMINER HAUPT, KRISTY A
1723 Ex Parte Edlund et al 10/412,709 EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
1621 Ex Parte McDaniel et al 11/607,349 EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
3623 Ex Parte Casati et al 10/177,423 EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V
1628 Ex Parte Towner et al 11/460,866 EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
3711 Ex Parte Ward et al 10/422,395 EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R
REHEARING
DENIED
2483 Ex Parte Gu et al 10/448,810 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T
Monday, December 6, 2010
Monday December 6, 2010
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Larcher et al 10/549,530 PAK FRANKLIN WARREN 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M
REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, § 41.50(b)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte DiFrancesco et al 10/788,111 FREDMAN GREEN WALSH 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AKC PATENTS
“A single patent may include claims directed to one or more of the classes of patentable subject matter, but no single claim may cover more than one subject matter class.” Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instr. Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding indefinite a claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus)).
IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(p)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Gomm et al 11/496,361 JEFFERY HUGHES STEPHENS 102(b) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER CAO, CHUN
AFFIRMED
3622 Ex Parte Carrez et al 10/969,916 EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
2128 Ex Parte Dotaro et al 10/253,809 EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K
2628 Ex Parte Dresevic et al 11/075,727 EXAMINER CASCHERA, ANTONIO A
2447 Ex Parte Fischer 10/004,089 EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C
3691 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/706,459 EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M
2432 Ex Parte Sasaki 10/128,234 EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
1613 Ex Parte Xia et al 11/373,571 EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Larcher et al 10/549,530 PAK FRANKLIN WARREN 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M
REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, § 41.50(b)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte DiFrancesco et al 10/788,111 FREDMAN GREEN WALSH 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AKC PATENTS
“A single patent may include claims directed to one or more of the classes of patentable subject matter, but no single claim may cover more than one subject matter class.” Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instr. Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding indefinite a claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus)).
IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(p)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Gomm et al 11/496,361 JEFFERY HUGHES STEPHENS 102(b) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER CAO, CHUN
AFFIRMED
3622 Ex Parte Carrez et al 10/969,916 EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
2128 Ex Parte Dotaro et al 10/253,809 EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K
2628 Ex Parte Dresevic et al 11/075,727 EXAMINER CASCHERA, ANTONIO A
2447 Ex Parte Fischer 10/004,089 EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C
3691 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/706,459 EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M
2432 Ex Parte Sasaki 10/128,234 EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
1613 Ex Parte Xia et al 11/373,571 EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M
Friday, December 3, 2010
Friday December 3, 2010
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Lopez 11/542,972 BARRETT HORNER PATE, III 102(b)/101/103(a) ORTIZ & LOPEZ, PLLC EXAMINER ISLAM, SYED A
AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Neville et al 10/648,414 COURTENAY BARRY JEFFERY 103(a) EXAMINER POLLACK, MELVIN H
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Michelson 10/430,783 FREDMAN GREEN WALSH 112(1)/103(a) EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Lopez 11/542,972 BARRETT HORNER PATE, III 102(b)/101/103(a) ORTIZ & LOPEZ, PLLC EXAMINER ISLAM, SYED A
AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Neville et al 10/648,414 COURTENAY BARRY JEFFERY 103(a) EXAMINER POLLACK, MELVIN H
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Michelson 10/430,783 FREDMAN GREEN WALSH 112(1)/103(a) EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Thursday December 2, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/939,974 FREDMAN SCHEINER SPIEGEL 103(a) JAMES C. SIMMONS EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Steinbrunner et al 11/444,284 SONG SCHAFER TURNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED
2627 Ex Parte Arya 11/144,001 KRIVAK BAUMEISTER RUGGIERO EXAMINER DRAVININKAS, ADAM B
1743 Ex Parte Garelli 11/879,125 GAUDETTE KRATZ PAK EXAMINER MALEKZADEH, SEYED MASOUD
1657 Ex Parte Knize et al 11/378,853 FREDMAN SCHEINER SPIEGEL EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C
3156 Ex Parte Vance et al 10/968,770 THOMAS JEFFERY LUCAS EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/939,974 FREDMAN SCHEINER SPIEGEL 103(a) JAMES C. SIMMONS EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Steinbrunner et al 11/444,284 SONG SCHAFER TURNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED
2627 Ex Parte Arya 11/144,001 KRIVAK BAUMEISTER RUGGIERO EXAMINER DRAVININKAS, ADAM B
1743 Ex Parte Garelli 11/879,125 GAUDETTE KRATZ PAK EXAMINER MALEKZADEH, SEYED MASOUD
1657 Ex Parte Knize et al 11/378,853 FREDMAN SCHEINER SPIEGEL EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C
3156 Ex Parte Vance et al 10/968,770 THOMAS JEFFERY LUCAS EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wednesday December 1, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM
"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05
Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J
“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04
Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04
AFFIRMED
1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
REHEARING DENIED
1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM
"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05
Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J
“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04
Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04
AFFIRMED
1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
REHEARING DENIED
1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Reid et al 11/222,712 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL
1623 Ex Parte Carlino 10/523,657 GREEN PRATS FREDMAN nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte White et al 10/935,156 TIMM SMITH HASTINGS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING
1742 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/458,636 OWENS FRANKLIN HASTINGS 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EXAMINER TENTONI, LEO B
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Santosuosso 11/149,489 BARRY JEFFERY COURTENAY III 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Harris 10/890,721 BLANKENSHIP LUCAS DANG 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SCOTT C HARRIS EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2443 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/261,126 HOMERE DIXON BARRY 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A
2484 Ex Parte Proidl et al 10/015,836 BAUMEISTER HAHN WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN
2493 Ex Parte Schaeck et al 09/731,509 HOMERE THOMAS BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G
2444 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 10/038,142 KRIVAK HOFF HAHN 112(2)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Riley et al 10/097,040 SAADAT KRIVAK MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
2628 Ex Parte Sevastianov et al 10/953,868 KRIVAK RUGGIERO BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Halder 11/392,076 HORNER KERINS McCARTHY 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
3677 Ex Parte Vosbikian et al 11/425,772 HORNER MCCARTHY SILVERBERG 103(a) ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. John F. Letchford EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Jira et al 10/228,280 PRATS GRIMES McCOLLUM 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER DEVI, SARVAMANGALA J N
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/948,774 JEFFERY HUGHES LUCAS 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER JAMI, HARES
2161 Ex Parte Drory et al 10/814,579 HOMERE BARRY DIXON 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Gordon et al 09/792,889 LORIN CRAWFORD MOHANTY 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD - COX EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3628
Ex parte Earlychildhood LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,156 6,345,400 LANE MEDLEY SONG 102(b)/103(a) Haverstock & Owens, LLP Norman E. Lehrer, P.C. EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M
See Bruckelmyer v. Gound Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.’” (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F.Supp. 738, 743 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)).
I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp 738, 148 USPQ 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2128
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2603
Ex parte LG ELECTRONICS, INC. 90/008,522 5,077,733 EASTHOM BOALICK TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Third Party Requester: WEN LIU LIU & LIU EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K
The “fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Leibel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01
AFFIRMED
1713 Ex Parte Annapragada et al 10/847,695 EXAMINER DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD
3724 Ex Parte Baxivanelis et al 11/290,902 EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU
1641 Ex Parte Hickok et al 10/774,144 EXAMINER GRUN, JAMES LESLIE
1765 Ex Parte Hyon et al 10/643,673 REISSUE 6,168,626 EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
1796 Ex Parte Hyon et al 10/643,674 EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2471 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,903 EXAMINER PHAN, TRI H
1617 Ex Parte Kibler et al 10/522,157 EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A
1655 Ex Parte Lang 10/504,195 EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
2878 Ex Parte Lerner et al 11/149,605 EXAMINER DOWLING, WILLIAM C
2443 Ex Parte Matz 10/176,908 EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M
1788 Ex Parte Miller 11/405,361 EXAMINER VO, HAI
2617 Ex Parte Mohindra et al 10/780,471 EXAMINER AFSHAR, KAMRAN
2168 Ex Parte Mott et al 10/769,945 EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO
1648 Ex Parte Page et al 10/312,045 EXAMINER PENG, BO
2186 Ex Parte Parkinson et al 10/938,705 EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
2816 Ex Parte Rotzoll et al 10/945,775 EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B
3625 Ex Parte Stanglmayr 10/304,117 EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C
1612 Ex Parte Vishnupad et al 11/198,613 EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
2812 Ex Parte Wu et al 11/117,152 EXAMINER PATEL, REEMA
3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/103,353 EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D
REHEARING
DENIED
3651 Ex Parte Krischer 10/483,129 EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A
3766 Ex Parte Libbus 10/962,845 EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE
1746 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 10/142,512 EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H
2444 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 11/300,943 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
2444 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 11/304,167 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
1767 Ex Parte Sophiea et al 11/138,541 EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Reid et al 11/222,712 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL
1623 Ex Parte Carlino 10/523,657 GREEN PRATS FREDMAN nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte White et al 10/935,156 TIMM SMITH HASTINGS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING
1742 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/458,636 OWENS FRANKLIN HASTINGS 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EXAMINER TENTONI, LEO B
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Santosuosso 11/149,489 BARRY JEFFERY COURTENAY III 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Harris 10/890,721 BLANKENSHIP LUCAS DANG 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SCOTT C HARRIS EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2443 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/261,126 HOMERE DIXON BARRY 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A
2484 Ex Parte Proidl et al 10/015,836 BAUMEISTER HAHN WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN
2493 Ex Parte Schaeck et al 09/731,509 HOMERE THOMAS BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G
2444 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 10/038,142 KRIVAK HOFF HAHN 112(2)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Riley et al 10/097,040 SAADAT KRIVAK MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
2628 Ex Parte Sevastianov et al 10/953,868 KRIVAK RUGGIERO BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Halder 11/392,076 HORNER KERINS McCARTHY 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER FERGUSON, MICHAEL P
3677 Ex Parte Vosbikian et al 11/425,772 HORNER MCCARTHY SILVERBERG 103(a) ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. John F. Letchford EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Jira et al 10/228,280 PRATS GRIMES McCOLLUM 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER DEVI, SARVAMANGALA J N
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/948,774 JEFFERY HUGHES LUCAS 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER JAMI, HARES
2161 Ex Parte Drory et al 10/814,579 HOMERE BARRY DIXON 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Gordon et al 09/792,889 LORIN CRAWFORD MOHANTY 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD - COX EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3628
Ex parte Earlychildhood LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,156 6,345,400 LANE MEDLEY SONG 102(b)/103(a) Haverstock & Owens, LLP Norman E. Lehrer, P.C. EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M
See Bruckelmyer v. Gound Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.’” (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F.Supp. 738, 743 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)).
I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp 738, 148 USPQ 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2128
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2603
Ex parte LG ELECTRONICS, INC. 90/008,522 5,077,733 EASTHOM BOALICK TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Third Party Requester: WEN LIU LIU & LIU EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K
The “fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Leibel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01
AFFIRMED
1713 Ex Parte Annapragada et al 10/847,695 EXAMINER DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD
3724 Ex Parte Baxivanelis et al 11/290,902 EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU
1641 Ex Parte Hickok et al 10/774,144 EXAMINER GRUN, JAMES LESLIE
1765 Ex Parte Hyon et al 10/643,673 REISSUE 6,168,626 EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
1796 Ex Parte Hyon et al 10/643,674 EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2471 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,903 EXAMINER PHAN, TRI H
1617 Ex Parte Kibler et al 10/522,157 EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A
1655 Ex Parte Lang 10/504,195 EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
2878 Ex Parte Lerner et al 11/149,605 EXAMINER DOWLING, WILLIAM C
2443 Ex Parte Matz 10/176,908 EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M
1788 Ex Parte Miller 11/405,361 EXAMINER VO, HAI
2617 Ex Parte Mohindra et al 10/780,471 EXAMINER AFSHAR, KAMRAN
2168 Ex Parte Mott et al 10/769,945 EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO
1648 Ex Parte Page et al 10/312,045 EXAMINER PENG, BO
2186 Ex Parte Parkinson et al 10/938,705 EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
2816 Ex Parte Rotzoll et al 10/945,775 EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B
3625 Ex Parte Stanglmayr 10/304,117 EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C
1612 Ex Parte Vishnupad et al 11/198,613 EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
2812 Ex Parte Wu et al 11/117,152 EXAMINER PATEL, REEMA
3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/103,353 EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D
REHEARING
DENIED
3651 Ex Parte Krischer 10/483,129 EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A
3766 Ex Parte Libbus 10/962,845 EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE
1746 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 10/142,512 EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H
2444 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 11/300,943 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
2444 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 11/304,167 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
1767 Ex Parte Sophiea et al 11/138,541 EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
Monday, November 29, 2010
REVERSED
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Yamada 11/175,370 MacDONALD Dissenting MARTIN BAUMEISTER 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER GUERTIN, AARON M
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Yamada 11/175,370 MacDONALD Dissenting MARTIN BAUMEISTER 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER GUERTIN, AARON M
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)