REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Pflugler et al 11/096,605 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Hellig et al 10/745,044 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Kamio et al 09/987,404 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

It is well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Kulis et al 10/967,040 TIERNEY 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC EXAMINER BURCH, MELODY M

3616 Ex Parte Saieg et al 11/141,628 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER WILHELM, TIMOTHY

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Lipps et al 10/716,982 GRIMES 112(1) JOHN R. CASPERSON EXAMINER REDDIG, PETER J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Gupta 11/028,114 PAK nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1781 Ex Parte Andersen et al 10/529,137 HASTINGS 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

1733 Ex Parte Oishi et al 10/561,536 GAUDETTE 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER VELASQUEZ, VANESSA T

1728 Ex Parte Tsuge 09/788,339 GARRIS 103(a) NDQ&M WATCHSTONE LLP EXAMINER BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Mellinger et al 11/183,545 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FISHBURN, JOHN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Lowthert et al 09/766,133 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER RAMAN, USHA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Abolfathi 10/137,725 TURNER 103(a) Beyer Law Group LLP EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL

3671 Ex Parte Berlin 11/541,626 STAICOVICI 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Stirm 12/283,260 LEE 103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Gunne et al 10/535,735 LEE 102(b) Crowell & Moring LLP EXAMINER HSIAO, JAMES K

3693 Ex Parte Atig 10/297,722 FETTING 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. HOLT EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S

3627 Ex Parte Shomper et al 11/489,312 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Vu et al 10/907,807 BAHR 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/037,574 MILLS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

“A whereby clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instuments v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . 716.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Buzzacarini et al 09/949,954 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Shirley 10/773,968 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2195 Ex Parte Novaes et al 10/443,079 LUCAS 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WAI, ERIC CHARLES

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Bolle et al 10/175,236 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

2442 Ex Parte Lyle et al 10/993,331 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.02, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2144.09, 2145

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Jayaram et al 11/053,774 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL

2611 Ex Parte Tramm et al 10/611,525 HAHN 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP EXAMINER PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Kumar et al 10/558,018 FRANKLIN 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Dee et al 10/990,609 SIU 102(b)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Biester 10/415,418 HORNER 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER PILKINGTON, JAMES

3671 Ex Parte Hall et al 11/075,896 O’NEILL 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Brud et al 10/737,101 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

Consistent with the principle that all limitations in a claim must be considered to be meaningful, it is improper to rely on the same structure in the Rönnberg reference as being responsive to two different elements (first and second attachment members) in claims 1, 43, and 44. See, Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Crabtree 11/552,397 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) FREUDENBERG-NOK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP EXAMINER SCHWARTZ, CHRISTOPHER P

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS, Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/344,426 WALSH 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

1793 Ex Parte Collins et al 11/838,638 MARTIN 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, NGOCLAN THI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Semerdzhiev 10/846,098 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Lessmoellmann et al 10/408,755 FETTING 101/103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Fremantle et al 10/402,185 LUCAS 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER ISMAIL, SHAWKI SAIF

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte OLIVER et al 09/036,236 MOHANTY 112(6) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EXAMINER DUNHAM, JASON B

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Cox et al 11/428,289 OWENS 103(a) HONEYWELL/STW EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Schmieding 10/638,489 ADAMS 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3784 Ex Parte Lifson et al 10/829,744 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER ALI, MOHAMMAD M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2164 Ex parte PRESENTATION SPECIALIST TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 90/008,957 6,453,302 EASTHOM 112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER POINVIL, FRANTZY

This mental image producing result does not constitute a patentable distinction. Rather, it constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (requiring a “functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate” for claim language to impart patentability) (quoting In re Gulack, 703, F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); accord In re Bryan, 323 Fed. Appx. 898 (nonprecedential) (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“the substance of the printed matter . . . cannot impart patentability, as it is ‘useful and intelligible only to the human mind’” (quoting In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1983).)

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

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

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

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10/702,010 TIMM dissent NAGUMO 112(1) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

1783 Ex Parte Sjoberg 10/477,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE, & QUIGG, LLP – PERGO EXAMINER SIMONE, CATHERINE A

2471 Ex Parte Vasudevan et al 10/001,296 SAADAT 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Brunner et al 10/877,358 MARTIN 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI LLP EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C

2612 Ex Parte Castle et al 11/094,759 HOFF 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHAN, OMER S

REISSUE

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Riddle 10/857,799 5,999,977 JEFFERY 251 APPLE/FENWICK EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S

Section 251 governs reissuing defective patents “deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid . . . by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 251, ¶ 1. Although this statute is “remedial in nature,” and “based on fundamental principles of equity and fairness, . . . not every event or circumstance that might be labelled ‘error’ is correctable by reissue.” In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Notably, the statute mandates that “[n]o reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 251, ¶ 4 (emphasis added).

This two-year limit codifies a long-standing equitable doctrine of laches applied to broadening reissue applications,7 and ensures that the public is timely notified of the intention to broaden patented claims. See In re Graff, 111 F.3d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Notice is critical since the potential expansion of the patentee’s patent rights via reissue likewise affects the public’s rights in an increased likelihood of infringing that expanded scope, notwithstanding the intervening rights provisions of § 252. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 252. The reissue statute therefore “balances the purpose of providing the patentee with an opportunity to correct errors of inadequate claim scope, with the public interest in finality and certainty of patent rights.” Graff, 111 F.3d at 877 (citation omitted). As such, the “public is entitled to rely on the absence of a broadening reissue application within two years of grant of the original patent.” Id.

7 P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 1 (West 1954), reprinted in 75 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 161, 205 (1993).

Graff, In re, 111 F.3d 874, 42 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 1403, 1412.03, 1451

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Hein et al 10/867,537 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER PAK, YONG D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Panz et al 11/036,987 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1765 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/104,759 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10/702,415 JEFFERY 103(a) Lester F. Ludwig EXAMINER FLETCHER, MARLON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Papsdorf 09/905,274 STAICOVICI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3732 Ex Parte Tarr 10/906,861 HORNER 103(a) HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/674,974 JEFFERY 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2174 Ex Parte Haynes 10/794,831 COURTENAY 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER KE, PENG

2186 Ex Parte Lee 10/390,667 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Stelea et al 11/181,122 KERINS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER JOHNSON III, HENRY M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3618 PlaSmart Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: Morris Manning Martin LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Jeffrey Sonnabend Sonnabend Law EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER CAMPBELL, KELLY E

To the extent that Requester’s argument is based on a “common sense” rationale, neither the Examiner nor Requester offers an adequate explanation on this record to support such a conclusion. See Trimed Inc. v. Stryker, 608 F.3d 1333, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Merely saying that an invention is a logical, commonsense solution to a known problem does not make it so.”)

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Jailkhani et al 11/246,569 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC EXAMINER GANGLE, BRIAN J

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references . . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The perspective from which these findings are made . . . is that of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention,” Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc., 45 F. 3d 1550, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995), who is presumed to have knowledge of all “pertinent prior art,” In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir 1992).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Carlson, In re, 983 F.2d 1032, 25 USPQ2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . .2126

1616 Ex Parte Miles 10/161,260 McCOLLUM 103(a) James F. Vaughan Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1615 Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/349,743 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S

1623 Ex Parte Zikria et al 11/213,303 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) EVELYN M. SOMMER EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte Gaertner 10/883,236 HOMERE 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Downey 11/123,758 DANG 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINERLIPMAN, JACOB

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Breiner 11/322,051 MacDONALD T.H.P. RICHARDSON EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Li 11/489,054 SMITH 102(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1781 Ex Parte Graham et al 11/405,153 FREDMAN 103(a) STITES & HARBISON, PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1786 Ex Parte Hamada et al 10/736,368 SMITH 102(b) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Hessling et al 10/415,700 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2179 Ex Parte Scott 10/983,606 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such a way as to distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of protection afforded by the patent. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Vamco Machine and Tool, Inc., In re, 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 2286, 2686.04

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Kikinis 10/192,198 SAADAT 103(a) CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC EXAMINER DECKER, CASSANDRA L

2437 Ex Parte Frantzen et al 11/178,585 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Klee et al 10/302,349 BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(4)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NXP, B.V. NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Murphy 11/186,356 KERINS 103(a) JOSEPH E. MUETH, ESQ. JOSEPH E. MUETH LAW CORPORATION EXAMINERS WINEHART, EDWIN L

3671 Ex Parte Gertner 11/142,599 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3672 Ex Parte Alliot 10/507,428 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL

3623 Ex Parte Bargnes et al 10/705,359 MOHANTY 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3657 Ex Parte Niessen 10/733,486 O’NEILL 103(a) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

A change in the method or principle of operation of the primary reference can render a modification nonobvious. For example, in In re Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. 270 F.2d 810, 811-813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as change the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification in Ratti fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how the sealed interface was attained. The facts of the present are analogous to the facts in Ratti.

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

3686 Ex Parte Brown 09/810,334 FETTING 101/102(e) HEALTH HERO NETWORK, INC.
EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ashton et al 10/774,768 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Waelbroeck et al 09/750,768 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3686 Ex Parte Wyatt 10/736,373 FETTING 103(a) PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER NAJARIAN, LENA

The most pertinent finding here is that association of the information being entered is not a structural limitation. "[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Eisenhut 11/294,331 SILVERBERG dissent BAHR 102(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/402,257 PRATS 103(a) ELAN DRUG DELIVERY, INC. C/O FOLEY & LARDNER EXAMINER LEA, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Bourgeois et al 11/518,669 COLAIANNI 103(a) RISSMAN HENDRICKS & OLIVERIO, LLP EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Cannon et al 11/008,393 JEFFERY 112(1)/101/103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

“If rebuttal evidence of adequate weight is produced, the holding of prima facie obviousness . . . is dissipated. Regardless of whether the prima facie case could have been characterized as strong or weak, the examiner must consider all of the evidence anew.” In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Piasecki, In re, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 716.01(d), 2107.02, 2142, 2145

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Challenger et al 10/034,726 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM AUSTIN EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

2445 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/403,561 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHILLIPS, HASSAN A

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Koegler et al 10/661,753 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

2627 Ex Parte Koegler et al 10/661,722 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/119,626 SAADAT 103(a) MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A. EXAMINER DOAK, JENNIFER L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Adler 10/091,859 FETTING 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ERB, NATHAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte de Saint-Aignan et al 10/741,731 SILVERBERG 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER UTAMA, ROBERT J

REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kothandaraman et al 11/115,752 O’NEILL 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Bartsch 10/625,582 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

1781 Ex Parte Graham et al 11/405,143 FREDMAN 103(a) STITES & HARBISON, PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Paller et al 10/832,546 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) ALBERTDHAND LLP EXAMINER SPIELER, WILLIAM

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/627,548 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER CURS, NATHAN M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Lunsford et al 11/348,895 GARRIS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

1733 Ex Parte Merrill et al 11/235,494 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte White et al 11/561,463 MacDONALD 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOAI AN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Blankstein 11/227,869 PATE III 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3742 Ex Parte Koenekamp et al 11/368,059 McCARTHY 101/112(2)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER CAMPBELL, THOR S

REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Scherschel et al 10/931,172 MACDONALD 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA

Combining known elements for the purpose of convenience does not impart patentability to the combination. See Anderson’s-Black Rock, 396 U.S. at 61 (“The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a ‘new or different function,’ Lincoln Engineering Co. of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545, 549, 58 S.Ct. 662, 664, 82 L.Ed. 1008, within the test of validity of combination patents.”).

Anderson’s-Black Rock Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.01(a), 2141, 2143.01

Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545, 37 USPQ 1 (1938). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(j)

REVERSED

Ex Parte Ainsworth et al
Ex Parte Fagan

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Finch et al
Ex Parte Karaoguz et al
Ex Parte Maroney et al
Ex Parte Van Vleck et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Chen
Ex Parte Heine
Ex Parte Kim et al
Ex Parte Manfredi
Ex Parte Moon et al
Ex Parte Mott et al
Ex Parte Pappas et al
Ex Parte Roesler et al
Ex Parte Yoshida

REVERSED

Ex Parte Baryshnikov
Ex Parte Desclos et al
Ex Parte Gudorf
Ex Parte Herman
Ex Parte Prakken et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Rudzinski et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Blair et al
Ex Parte Bosworth et al
Ex Parte Chen
Ex Parte Ideker
Ex Parte Kinoshita et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Mooney et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Au et al

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chidambarrao et al
Ex Parte Drew et al
Ex Parte Fontoura et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Barsness et al
Ex Parte Doddek et al
Ex Parte Hanawa et al
Ex Parte Schiller

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte CRODA EUROPE LTD.

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brock et al
Ex Parte Koskey
Ex Parte Sibbesen et al

REVERSED

Ex Parte Bates et al
Ex Parte De Ceuster et al
Ex Parte Minton
Ex Parte Nefzger et al
Ex Parte Ng-Thow-Hing et al
Ex Parte Reynolds
Ex Parte Samant et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Addis et al
Ex Parte Brunner
Ex Parte Gil et al
Ex Parte Reding et al
Ex Parte Steger
Ex Parte Yamanaka et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Babic
Ex Parte Benitsch
Ex Parte Brunner
Ex Parte Cavusoglu et al
Ex Parte Duffy
Ex Parte Frutos et al
Ex Parte Hood
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Lawton et al
Ex Parte McCormick et al
Ex Parte Mills et al
Ex Parte Pinsl-Ober et al
Ex Parte Rehmanji et al
Ex Parte Sims

REHEARING

Ex Parte Murray

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10/824,023 COLAIANNI 103(a) MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Thayyoor et al 10/993,702 DANG 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER STIGLIC, RYAN M

2162 Ex Parte Gottsman 10/361,988 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Vedder Price PC EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

2178 Ex Parte Cross et al 11/154,896 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kurapati et al 10/179,315 KRIVAK 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Hardwick 10/482,730 HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2628 Ex Parte Sloan et al 10/692,361 KRIVAK 103(a) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP EXAMINER BROOME, SAID A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Vanbortel et al 10/852,536 KRIVAK 103(a) PRASS LLP EXAMINER GRAINGER, QUANA MASHELL

2857 Ex Parte Klein et al 11/065,331 BAUMEISTER 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM Tucson EXAMINER CHARIOUI, MOHAMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte McNamara et al 10/556,801 O’NEILL 112(1)/103(a) DAVID J. GASKEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Fearon et al 10/879,983 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) WEISS & MOY PC EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M

3721 Ex Parte Griggs et al 11/151,670 PATE III 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3773 Ex Parte Gunderson 10/912,917 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3737 Ex Parte Siegel et al 11/219,372 PATE III 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3737 Ex Parte TEARNEY et al 11/534,095 McCARTHY 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3711 Ex Parte Thomas et al 10/090,685 LORIN 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/115,433 FRANKLIN 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER FRASER, STEWART A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Metsatahti et al 10/715,093 DANG 103(a) NOKIA CORPORATION AND ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Khartabil 10/755,205 DANG 103(a)/112(2) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

2447 Ex Parte Koning et al 10/762,985 HOMERE 102(e) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Thevenon 10/889,412 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER GROSSO, HARRY A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2832 Ex parte ANASCAPE, LTD. 90/008,379 5,999,084 SIU 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JARED S. GOFF KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER EASTHOM, KARL D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1751 Ex parte Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,273 6,313,081 LANE obviousness-type double-patenting Ratner Prestia Novozymes North America, Inc. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1751 Ex parte Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,274 6,767,879 LANE obviousness-type double-patenting Ratner Prestia Novozymes North America, Inc. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER DOUYON, LORNA M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3677 Ex parte PANDUIT CORPORATION Appellant 90/008,800 6,745,439 BOALICK 103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATRICK J. FLEIS RYAN, KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER BRITTAIN, JAMES R

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bachand et al
Ex Parte Birkestrand et al
Ex Parte Bradford et al
Ex Parte Burkhardt et al
Ex Parte Celi et al
Ex Parte Chang et al
Ex Parte Childress et al
Ex Parte Fields et al
Ex Parte Hu et al
Ex Parte Ibrahim
Ex Parte Iizuka et al
Ex Parte Ishikawa et al
Ex Parte Kajita
Ex Parte Kapp et al
Ex Parte Laney et al
Ex Parte Majkrzak
Ex Parte Maltby et al
Ex Parte Martino et al
Ex Parte Nakanishi
Ex Parte Nikolic et al
Ex Parte Regini et al
Ex Parte Risner
Ex Parte Schnetzler
Ex parte SHIRLEY
Ex Parte Soerens et al
Ex Parte Stuckman et al
Ex Parte Swisher et al
Ex Parte Toas et al
Ex Parte Torvinen et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Goodhue
Ex Parte Mikami
Ex Parte Tsukimori et al
Ex Parte Vickers et al