REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Berg et al 10/716,349 MILLS 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Liang 10/670,949 MacDONALD 103(a) GERALD W. MALISZEWSKI EXAMINER LUONG, ALAN H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Conlon 11/188,098 PATE III 112(2) Quinn Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

3685 Ex Parte Heiden 10/890,081 FETTING 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A

3676 Ex Parte Werz et al 10/116,317 HORNER 103(a) Alix, Yale & Ristas, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969) (determining that “‘interbonded one to another by interfusion between the surfaces of the perlite particles’ is as capable of being construed as a structural limitation as ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded.’”), cited with approval in Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Bowman 10/976,111 HORNER 102(b) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,312 HORNER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3717 Ex Parte Kislevitz et al 10/770,344 HORNER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N

3727 Ex Parte Kodaverdian et al 10/638,096 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER SHAKERI, HADI KLAAS, LAW, O'MEARA & MALKIN, P.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Testa et al 10/933,455 FREDMAN 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

In Gleave, the Federal Circuit expressly addressed the issue of lists of large numbers of compounds, where the “list includes more than 1400 sequences.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Court, found that “Wraight expressly lists every possible fifteen-base-long oligodeoxynucleotide sequence in IGFBP-2, and under our precedent, this list anticipates Gleave’s claims.” Id. at 1338.

...

Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).

See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Unexpected results must also be “commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claimed subject matter.”)

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3736 Ex parte Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,910 6,175,752 ROBERTSON 305/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PENG CHEN MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER ASTORINO, MICHAEL C

Section 305 does not require the patent owner to include an express statement that the new claims distinguish the prior art or remarks indicating how the new claims distinguish the prior art references. If the claims fail to distinguish the prior art, the claims will be rejected on the appropriate grounds; for that reason, it may frequently be in the patent owner's interest to include such remarks, but they are not necessary to satisfy section 305. For purposes of assessing validity under section 305, the MPEP directs the examiner to determine only whether any added claims impermissibly “enlarge the scope of the original claims.” 37 C.F.R. §1.552(b). Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3736 Ex parte Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,903 6,565,509 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) FOR PATENT OWNER: HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PENG CHEN AND RICHARD KIM MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER NATNITHITHADHA, NAVIN

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E

“Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice. In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

Lindner, In re, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . 716.01(c), 716.02(d), 2145

1616 Ex Parte Freedman et al 10/483,410 FREDMAN 103(a) MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. EXAMINER BROOKS, KRISTIE LATRICE

1634 Ex Parte Albitar et al 11/165,445 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SHAW, AMANDA MARIE

1616 Ex Parte Bandyopadhyay et al 11/895,218 McCOLLUM 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1645 Ex Parte Breton et al 10/504,906 McCOLLUM 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10/481,151 MacDONALD 103(a) US PHILIPS CORPORATION EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S

2482 Ex Parte Kuroda et al 11/155,483 SAADAT 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER WONG, ALLEN C

2437 Ex Parte Medvinsky 10/086,302 HUGHES 103(a) Motorola, Inc. EXAMINER GELAGAY, SHEWAYE

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Silverstein et al 10/459,080 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BEMBEN, RICHARD M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Rozenfeld et al 11/188,023 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES, INC. EXAMINER SANDERS, HOWARD J

3689 Ex Parte Brine 10/939,527 FETTING 103(a) JENIFER E. HAECKL, ESQ. MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

The Examiner also cited In re Lindberg, 194 F2d. 732 (CCPA 1952) for the legal finding that merely making something moveable was obvious.

Lindberg, In re, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Zoller et al 10/817,439 6,365,354 HASTINGS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Butler et al 10/106,461 CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

DENIED

3632 Ex Parte GOUGH 07/683,484 BAHR 102(e)/103(a) STEPHEN JOHN GOUGH EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

“[I]t is elementary that small changes in a crowded art may constitute invention.” In re Baum, 51 USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1941) (emphasis added).

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Duesselberg 11/220,105 MacDONALD 103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER BOATENG, ALEXIS ASIEDUA

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2642 Ex parte RAY J. FRISE 90/008,635 6,628,771 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) HENRY KERNIUS DAVID NOCILLY BOND, SCHOENECK & King EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TIEU, BENNY QUOC

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Bagci et al 11/264,473 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

1762 Ex Parte Schmidt-Thummes et al 10/541,206 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BERNSHTEYN, MICHAEL

“[B]y definition, any superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Doris et al 10/695,748 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER CAO, PHAT X

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Semmes 11/323,362 McCARTHY 103(a) MARK S. HUBERT EXAMINER PATEL, VINOD D

The established precedent of our reviewing Court sets up a two-fold test for determining whether art is nonanalogous: “First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986). One determines whether a prior art reference is within the same field of endeavor as the subject matter of a claim by comparing the structure and function of the claimed subject matter to that of the subject matter disclosed in the reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Deminski, In re, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2141.01(a)

REMANDED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Schnyder 10/525,778 JORDAN Siemens Corporation EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVE N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte O’KEEFE 11/555,607 STAICOVICI 101/112(1)/103(a) GODO CONSULTING EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

The Examiner has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt Appellant’s presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention's asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.’” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) (alterations in original). The burden of coming forward with evidence of utility shifts to Appellant “[i]f the [Examiner] provides evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility[.]” Id.

Swartz, In re, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . 2106, 2107.01, 2164.07

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . 2111, 2164.04

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01,2107.03, 2164.01(c), 2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Zechlin et al 11/448,265 LEBOVITZ 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER VALENROD, YEVGENY

1642 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/913,509 LANE 102(e) Immunomedics, Inc. EXAMINER YAO, LEI

“[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 53 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . 804, 2106, 2111.01

1626 Ex Parte Jungkamp et al 10/586,452 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ni et al 09/821,753 TIMM Concurring-In-Part and Dissenting-In-Part KRATZ 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN GILMAN & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

1761 Ex Parte Taylor 11/505,445 SMITH 112(2)/102(a,b,e)/103(a) LAWNIE TAYLOR/LHTAYLOR ASSOCIATES INC. EXAMINER BOYER, CHARLES I

The Appellant bears the procedural burden of showing harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (citations omitted) (“Lower court cases make clear that courts have correlated review of ordinary administrative proceedings to appellate review of civil cases in this respect. . . . [T]he party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.”) See also, In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussing the role of harmless error in appeals from decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”)).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Vishnubhotla 11/175,061 LUCAS 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREG GOSHORN, P.C. EXAMINER VO, TRUONG V

We note that Appellant discloses the claimed “memory” “can be any means that … propagates … data.” (Spec. 6, ¶ [0020]). We find Appellant’s disclosure significant, in that only signal waves are propagated in the context of the programming product of claim 15. In accordance with Nuijten’s teaching that a signal cannot be patentable subject matter, we reject claim 15 as outside the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Chheda et al 10/171,371 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK

The “intended use” of a machine is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967). Statements of intended use are not entitled to substantial weight in the patentability analysis. See generally Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 155-59 (CCPA 1951) and the authority cited therein, and cases compiled in 3 Chisum on Patents § 8.06[1][d] (2007).

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

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

2483 Ex Parte Vitito 10/920,430 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/259,640 HAHN 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER RUDE, TIMOTHY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte King et al 11/836,398 HORNER 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Dawson et al 10/401,861 SMITH 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Choi et al 09/934,248 TIMM 112(2)/103(a) U.T. SYSTEMS BOARD OF REGENTS C/O MII EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Jung et al 10/748,167 JEFFERY 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte EARNEST 11/307,403 O’NEILL 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER MITCHELL, KATHERINE W

3657 Ex Parte Jasso et al 10/937,931 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAMELA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Deangelis et al 11/417,728 O’NEILL 103(a) LEGAL DEPARTMENT (M-495)
EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J

3779 Ex Parte Freed 10/760,520 HORNER 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC
EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

3721 Ex Parte Hagan 11/082,002 O’NEILL 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
EXAMINER NASH, BRIAN D

3742 Ex Parte Huth et al 10/976,555 O’NEILL 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3745 Ex Parte Popp et al 10/514,400 O’NEILL 103(a) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D

3711 Ex Parte Shoptaugh 11/134,809 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Harris Zimmerman EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M

3753 Ex Parte Wincek 11/159,009 HORNER 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF ERIC KARICH
EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Santosuosso 10/911,844 LUCAS 102(e)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Adusumilli et al 10/000,154 KRIVAK 102(e) MISSION/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J

2444 Ex Parte Cheng et al 10/256,730 HOMERE 101/102(a)/103(a) SAWYER LAW GROUP
EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDY

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2873 Ex parte BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Appellant 90/008,365 6,509,387 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER LESTER, EVELYN A

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex parte RAMBUS, INC. Appellant 90/010,420 6,034,918 EASTHOM 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: PAUL M. ANDERSON, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND, TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN

“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of a patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words of manifest exclusion or restriction’.” Leibel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

...

Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2003); accord Leibel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906 (“[T]he claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words of manifest exclusion or restriction’.” (Emphasis added)).

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

...

When a patent refers to “this invention” as the ‘918 patent does, it can imply a definition or at least set the scope for the claimed invention. See Edwards Life Sciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1330 (2009) (characterizing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc. 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 as “construing term to include feature characterized as “‘the present invention’”); cf. Edwards, 582 F.3d at 1330 (citing additional similar precedent and holding that the consistent interchanging of “interluminal graft 10” with “graft 10,” use of the phrase, “as defined above,” and frequently describing an “interluminal graft” as “‘the present invention’” or “‘this invention’” created a narrowing definition of graft to mean an interluminal graft). Thus, even if the ‘918 patent does sometimes interchange chip and memory device as Appellant argues and the expert opines (M2), referring to another embodiment as “this invention” not only cuts against any type of Edwards-based limiting inference relying on such interchanging, but elicits an intent to embrace both of the embodiments described.

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ghose et al 10/695,889 DIXON 103(a) Law Office Of Leland Wiesner EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Henderickx et al 10/690,544 MacDONALD 102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE

2434 Ex Parte Ting 10/395,049 STEPHENS 103(a) BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER POLTORAK, PIOTR

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG

3671 Ex Parte Wubbels et al 11/294,807 SCHAFER 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAI T

“The grant of a patent on a . . . machine cannot be predicated on a new use of that machine . . . .” In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248 (CCPA 1957).

Hack, In re, 245 F.2d 246, 114 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1957). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.02

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Roesler et al 11/104,174 ADAMS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Grace et al 10/273,024 KRIVAK 103(a) Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri, L.L.P. EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2889 Ex Parte Tsai 11/002,831 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER GUHARAY, KARABI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Bostock et al 11/279,976 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

3739 Ex Parte Paddock et al 10/261,056 MILLS 102(e)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Brasel et al 11/660,172 ADAMS 103(a) BASELL USA INC. EXAMINER MULCAHY, PETER D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Tan et al 10/540,190 BARRY 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte White et al 11/125,451 MacDONALD 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER LAI, ANNE VIET NGA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Kobayashi 10/983,057 MARTIN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ENGLUND, TERRY LEE

See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (an appellant may attempt to overcome an examiner’s obviousness rejection on appeal to the Board by: (A) submitting arguments and/or evidence to show that the examiner made an error in either (1) an underlying finding of fact upon which the final conclusion of obviousness was based or (2) the reasoning used to reach the legal conclusion of obviousness; or (B) showing that the prima facie case has been rebutted by evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Mandel 11/411,651 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) Prass LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, THOMAS A

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex Parte Surwit et al 11/584,005 GREEN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E

REPLY BRIEF NOT CONSIDERED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Dimitrova et al 10/014,179 BARTLETT PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER BAIG, SAHAR A

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Bastelberger et al 10/557,658 FRANKLIN 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting AUTOLIV ASP, INC ATTN: SALLY J. BROWN, ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Copeland et al 10/ 037,337 HAHN 103(a) Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN C

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2132 Ex parte TSE Ho Keung Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,772 6,665,797 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HO KEUNG TSE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Rollat-Corvol et al 10/320,707 GRIMES 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S

1626 Ex Parte Villamar et al 10/312,039 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THE VILLAMAR FIRM PLLC EXAMINER NWAONICHA, CHUKWUMA O

1651 Ex Parte Feng 10/460,577 FREDMAN 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY EXAMINER FORD, ALLISON M

1656 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/848,689 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRMEXAMINERKIM, ALEXANDER D

1615 Ex Parte Bosch et al 10/619,539 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/102(e)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner
EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Elers 10/867,890 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1783 Ex Parte Wong et al 11/528,884 COLAIANNI Concurring-in-Part, Dissenting-in-Part KRATZ 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Lillibridge et al 10/988,415 DANG 102(b)/103(a)/101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Brown et al 10/602,754 MARTIN 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT D. SHEDD, PATENT OPERATIONS
THOMSON LICENSING LLC EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK

2443 Ex Parte Hind et al 10/460,929 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

2421 Ex Parte Kurapati et al 10/179,313 NAPPI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/973,223 HOFF 103(a) JOSEPH P. CURTIN EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Yamazaki 10/045,902 6,180,991 HORNER Concurring HANLON BAHR 251 ROBINSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OFFICE, P.C.EXAMINER POTTER, ROY KARL

We take this opportunity to resolve a conflict within the Office as to the meaning of “the term of the original patent” in 35 U.S.C. § 251 and whether the Office is authorized by this statute to remove a terminal disclaimer during reissue resulting in an expansion of the term of the original patent set at issuance. We interpret “the term of the original patent” in § 251 to refer to the “term” of the patent as the term set upon issuance of the original patent. As we noted supra, the Federal Circuit has recognized that under § 253 the expiration date of the patent subject to the terminal disclaimer is “reset” to the expiration date of the patent referenced in the terminal disclaimer. See Merck & Co., 482 F.3d at 1319; see also Bayer AG, 298 F.3d at 1381. Thus, we disagree with the Board’s earlier holding in Durckheimer that a terminal disclaimer does not alter “the term of the original patent.”

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Grainger et al 09/872,764 FETTING 102(a)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Arnoldy 10/269,236 FETTING 101 PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, JUSTIN V

3769 Ex Parte Dycus et al 10/369,894 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP EXAMINER ROANE, AARON F

3771 Ex Parte Patton et al 10/693,318 GREEN 103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Kime 11/150,927 NAGUMO WARREN dissenting 103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Zuniga-Ortiz et al 10/769,699 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER PHAM, HOAI V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Chamberlain 11/725,747 HORNER 102(b)/102(e) W. ALLEN MARCONTELL EXAMINER KEITH, JACK W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Thornton et al 10/729,259 SIU 101/102(e) AT&T Legal Department – TKHR
EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Yoon et al 10/307,139 LEBOVITZ 103(a) M. WAYNE WESTERNTHORPE, NORTH & WESTERN, L.L.P. EXAMINER HARTLEY, MICHAEL G

1648 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/280,915 LANE 103(a) Dr. Benjamin AdlerAdler & Assoc.EXAMINERLI, BAO Q

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Wang 11/879,265 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1798 Ex Parte Herrmann et al 11/160,475 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Becker 10/975,760 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN

2167 Ex Parte Clarke et al 10/787,515 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist - RIM EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Isoyama 09/988,653 COURTENAY III 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, NGHI V

“It is the claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 48 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . .804

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Obermann 10/518,262 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Kim 11/305,130 NAPPI 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHARIOUI, MOHAMED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Esksuri et al 10/159,079 McCOLLUM 103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

2600 Communications
2667 Ex parte TELES AG INFORMATIONSTECHNOLOGIEN Appellant 90/010,017 6,954,453 BOALICK 103(a)/112(6) FOR PATENT OWNER: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP original EXAMINER YAO, KWANG BIN

A structure in the prior art may be equivalent to a corresponding structure described in a specification if the structure in the prior art performs the identical function recited in the "means-plus-function" limitation in substantially the same way as in the corresponding structure with substantially the same result. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., Inc., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2183, 2184

112(6)

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 46 USPQ2d 1752 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . .2183, 2184

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Simonetta et al 10/307,012 LEBOVITZ 103(a) DONALD W. MARKS EXAMINER BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Morse 11/202,237 MOORE 103(a) RICHARD L HUFF EXAMINER SMITH, NKEISHA

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Deutsch et al 11/249,169 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Breed 11/025,501 SILVERBERG 103(a) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ EXAMINER TO, TUAN C

Thus, we find that the Examiner has not rebutted the Appellant’s argument that structured light is not similar to scattered light. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175-1176 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Once the examiner or Board carries the burden of making out a prima facie case of unpatentability, ‘the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.’ . . . ‘After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of the evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument[,]’” including any and all rebuttals of the evidence of argument submitted by applicant.)

Alton, In re, 76 F.3d 1168, 37 USPQ2d1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2145, 2163, 2163.06, 2164.05

3663 Ex Parte Lahoda et al 11/429,697 BAHR 103(a) Joseph C. Spadacene Westinghouse Electric Company LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (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 rejection).

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

3635 Ex Parte Luttrell et al 11/213,113 SILVERBERG 103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Michelson 10/098,683 SILVERBERG 112(1)/103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
EXAMINER TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3727 Ex Parte Wridt et al 10/950,066 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Oldani et al 11/111,499 ROBERTSON 103(a) Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, PC EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/271,226 JEFFERY 102(e) Michael J. Mallie Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor, & Zafman LLP EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Benitsch et al 11/732,873 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER HANSEN, JAMES ORVILLE

Thus, the theory of claim differentiation supports the interpretation that the rods of claim 1 are not limited to a rounded cross section. See generally Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.)

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Wong et al 11/432,952 FREDMAN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Brown et al 10/941,384 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION DAVID CATE EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

1727 Ex Parte Cutright et al 10/342,149 GAUDETTE 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER MARTIN, ANGELA J

1761 Ex Parte Deetman 09/801,883 ROBERTSON 251/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP EXAMINER OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

MBO Labs, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“MBO's arguments distinguishing the prior art based on its safety flange do not affect its surrender of another subject matter: a patentee's arguments that emphasize one feature cannot cure arguments that clearly surrender another.”)

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/497,507 MacDONALD 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLPEXAMINERHARRISON, CHANTE E

2612 Ex Parte Agapi et al 11/314,395 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY

2625 Ex Parte Haines et al 09/981,117 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GARCIA, GABRIEL I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Egan 10/366,248 STAICOVICI 103(a) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINERA, PHI DIEU TRAN

3652 Ex Parte Nigam 11/422,815 SILVERBERG 102(b) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER KRAMER, DEAN J

Things which may be done are not required to be done in the claims. Therefore, intended use statements cannot be regarded as structural limitations and are not positive limitations in a claim drawn to structure. Intended use statements cannot be relied on to distinguish a claim from the prior art. In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1006 (CCPA 1968).

Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01,2173.05(k)

3676 Ex Parte Zahn 11/178,988 SILVERBERG BAHR Concurring 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Waleh et al 10/786,280 COLAIANNI 103(a) DAVID W. COLLINS EXAMINER MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Pardee 11/150,670 KERINS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER BONCK, RODNEY H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Yan et al 10/763,633 HANLON WARREN concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part 112(2)/112(1)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Rongen et al 10/215,713 ADAMS 102(b) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER ROY, BAISAKHI

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Lomas et al 10/996,725 PAK 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER YOUNG, NATASHA E

1785 Ex Parte Schitter 10/990,749 COLAIANNI 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

“The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references).

Napier, In re, 55 F.3d 610, 34 USPQ2d 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Cowsar et al 11/006,157 HOFF 103(a) ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER HARPER, V PAUL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Alderete et al 11/479,780 FREDMAN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte I’ANSON 10/275,871 MOHANTY 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Aude 10/496,101 GAUDETTE 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Aubourg 10/099,235 GAUDETTE 103(a) OWENS CORNING EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C
1745 Ex Parte Ukegawa 11/209,781 GAUDETTE 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Podhajsky 11/141,176 FREDMAN 103(a) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Stanford et al 11/252,547 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M