REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Wynn et al 10/697,546 WALSH 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tsai et al 10/690,856 MacDONALD 102(b) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Banerjee et al 09/909,248 ROBERTSON 103(a)/112(2) 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Patent Administrator EXAMINER BRIER, JEFFERY A

Adequate disclosure for a section 112, sixth paragraph claim “for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Tech. Inc. v Inter. Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotations omitted). As the Federal Circuit recently noted, “[t]he key inquiry is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the patent to disclose structure that sufficiently corresponds to the claimed function, which in the case of a specific function implemented on a general purpose computer requires an algorithm.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, Nos. 2009-1450, 2009-1451, 2009-1452, 2009-1468, 2009-1469, 2010-1017, 2011 WL 607381, at *8 (Fed. Cir. February 18, 2011) (citing Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337). Thus, the Federal Circuit clarified in Katz, that an algorithm is only required in the context of means-plus-function claims in which a computer must be specially programmed to perform the recited function. In re Katz, 2011 WL 607381, *8.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Cheng et al 10/906,808 MacDONALD 103(a) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

2837 Ex Parte Degertekin 11/068,005 MacDONALD 103(a) TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP EXAMINER ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

2834 Ex Parte Hatano et al 11/474,958 SAADAT 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER TAMAI, KARL I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Bush 10/294,316 MOHANTY 101/103(a) Woodard, Emhardt, Naughton,
Moriarty and McNett LLP EXAMINER ALTSCHUL, AMBER L

3652 Ex Parte Epp et al 11/098,617 O’NEILL 103(a) ADE & COMPANY INC. EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

3643 Ex Parte Eriksson 10/480,435 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Falahee 10/979,021 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Murphy 10/770,403 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hadba et al 11/123,690 ADAMS 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Li et al 09/664,226 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP EXAMINER COLBERT, ELLA

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3728 MEADWESTVACO PACKAGING SYSTEMS, LLC Requester I and GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester II v. Patent of C. BROWN LINGAMFELTER Patent Owner 95/000,066 95/000,069 6,789,673 SONG 103(a) Daniel. D. Chapman, Esq. JACKSON WALKER, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2304 Ex parte Ricoh Company, Ltd., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,879, 90/007,945 & 90/009,094 4,922,432 TURNER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER TRANS, VINCENT N

With respect to reports generated and distributed within an organization, we have found previously that where there was evidence that all members of the organization understood a policy of confidentiality regarding research reports, where such reports were distributed according to that policy, and where there was no evidence of actual dissemination beyond the membership prior to the critical date, such reports are not considered to be printed publications as specified under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In re George, 1987 WL 123831 at *2 (BPAI 1987).

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Frisch et al 11/238,739 WALSH 103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP / WYETH LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Varatharaja 11/302,658 FRANKLIN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Kennedy 10/650,394 JEFFERY 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/879,401 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT CO., L.P. EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Choi et al 10/136,584 LORIN 103(a) WILLIAMS MULLEN EXAMINER PATEL, NIRAV B

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Boldon 10/345,868 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

2625 Ex Parte Horii 11/391,059 NAPPI 103(a) REED SMITH LLP EXAMINER WASHINGTON, JAMARES

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Bender 11/243,050 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Gregorich et al 10/063,179 SCHEINER 102(e)
VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER BUI, VY Q

3771 Ex Parte Rapoport 10/464,126 SCHEINER 102(b)
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Schirmer et al 11/053,791 OWENS 103(a)
KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER MUI, CHRISTINE T

1798 Ex Parte Villanueva at al 10/745,266 PAK 103(a)
DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER STEELE, JENNIFER A

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Rosenberger at al 11/203,924 OWENS 112(2)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a)
BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP EXAMINER TENTONI, LEO B

"[T]he indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the claims ‘circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.’" Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Industries Inc., 417 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005), quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971).

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Daks et al 09/966,004 DANG 103(a)
LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER KISS, ERIC B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Ma 10/437,585 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a)
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PATEL, NIRAV B

2455 Ex Parte Tenhunen et al 11/304,760 DANG 112(2)/102(b)
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (US) LLP EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

Our reviewing court has determined that a claim directed to a system and a method for using that system is indefinite. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . 2173.05(p)
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Hirst 10/846,451 SAADAT 103(a)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAXTON, GARY L

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Ahmad et al 09/972,362 HOMERE 103(a)
KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP. EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Santini 10/431,489 SAADAT 103(a)
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT EXAMINER BLOUIN, MARK S

2628 Ex Parte Bohm et al 11/230,803 SAADAT 103(a)
SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/888,770 MacDONALD 103(a)
King & Spalding LLP EXAMINER TRA, ANH QUAN

2892 Ex Parte Mei et al 11/264,321 MacDONALD 102(b)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KRAIG, WILLIAM F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ryde et al 10/895,405 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting
Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Falko-Gunter teaches that “we hold that where, as in this case, accessible literature sources clearly provided, as of the relevant date, genes and their nucleotide sequences (here ‘essential genes’), satisfaction of the written description requirement does not require either the recitation or incorporation by reference (where permitted) of such genes and sequences.” Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Matayabas et al 10/876,444 HANLON 103(a)
MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SELLERS, ROBERT E

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2881 E.F. PRODUCTS, L.P./IDQ HOLDINGS, INC. Respondent v. BRIGHT SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000261 6,590,220 EASTHOM 314(a)/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a)
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP Third Party Requester: Eric B. Meyertons Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, PC EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER ANDERSON, BRUCE C

Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than the material worked upon by the apparatus. In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (popcorn funnel claim anticipated by prior art oil funnel since the latter was capable of working on popcorn according to the function claimed); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . . .2114

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Rebar et al 10/055,711 GRIMES 103(a)
ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Yamada et al 10/898,967 GARRIS 103(a)
McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Crowley et al 10/662,248 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)
STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Mori 10/141,033 STAICOVICI 101/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
PHILIP J. POLLICK EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

The Supreme Court has provided guidance on processes which have not been developed.

Whatever weight is attached to the value of encouraging disclosure and of inhibiting secrecy, we believe a more compelling consideration is that a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute. Until the process claim has been reduced to production of a product shown to be useful, the metes and bounds of that monopoly are not capable of precise delineation. It may engross a vast, unknown, and perhaps unknowable area. Such a patent may confer power to block off whole areas of scientific development, without compensating benefit to the public. The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point-where specific benefit exists in currently available form-there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

Brenner, Comr. Pats. v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 523 (1966).

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Brown 11/451,546 HORNER 103(a)
HEALTH HERO NETWORK, INC. EXAMINER RAJAN, KAI

REISSUE

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Riddle 10/857,806 JEFFERY 251/103(a)
APPLE/FENWICK EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S

As the Supreme Court indicates, “[e]very independent inventor, every mechanic, every citizen, is affected by such delay, and by the issue of a new patent with a broader and more comprehensive claim.” Miller v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 104 U.S. 350, 355 (1881). And “[t]he granting of a reissue for such a purpose, after an unreasonable delay, is clearly an abuse of the power to grant reissues, and may justly be declared illegal and void.” Id. Thus, for broadening reissues, “the rule of laches should be strictly applied; and no one should be relieved who has slept upon his rights, and has thus led the public to rely on the implied disclaimer involved in the terms of the original patent.” Id. at 356.
...

The U.S. Supreme Court all but said as much in Webster Elec. Co. v. Splitdorf Elec. Co., 264 U.S. 463 (1924). There, a divisional application was filed approximately five years after the parent application was filed in February 1910, but before the parent application issued in 1916. Id. at 464. In June of 1918, however, an amendment was filed in the divisional application adding broader claims that were later patented. Id. at 464-65. Notably, the broadened claims added via this amendment were first presented to the Patent Office eight years and four months after the original application was filed. Id. at 465.

The Court held this delay was unreasonable, noting that the patentee “Kane did not originally intend to assert these amended claims, because he considered their subject-matter one merely of design and not of invention, and the inference is fully warranted that the intention to do so was not entertained prior to 1918.” Id. The Court noted that during all of this time, the subject matter of the broadened claims “was disclosed and in general use, and Kane and his assignee . . . simply stood by and awaited developments.” Id. This was not, however, “the simple case of a division of a single application for several independent inventions, . . . but [rather] a case of unreasonable delay and neglect on the part of the applicant and his assignee in bringing forward claims broader than those originally sought.” Id. at 465-66 (emphases added).

In reaching its decision, the Court relied heavily on equitable principles, particularly as they applied to delays in correcting errors via reissue applications, and adopted a similar two-year time limit for divisional applications. Id. at 471. Although the Court later held that Webster’s presumptive two-year time limit was dictum, the Court nevertheless “ratified prosecution laches as a defense to infringement actions involving new claims issuing from divisional and continuation applications that prejudice intervening adverse public rights.” Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Res. Found., 277 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., 304 U.S. 159 (1938) and Gen. Talking Pictures Corp. v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 304 U.S. 175 (1938)). That is, the Court ratified the doctrine of prosecution laches in Crown Cork and General Talking Pictures, but did not apply it in those cases in the absence of intervening rights.

Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 76 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005). . . . . .2190

REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3651 REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC Requester and Cross-Appellant v. HABASIT BELTING, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,072 6,523,680 ROBERTSON 103
PATENT OWNER: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Daniel G. Radler Quarles & Brady LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Yu et al 10/489,157 PRATS 103(a)
Moser IP Law Group / Ansell Limited EXAMINER AHMED, HASAN SYED

As the Federal Circuit has stated, “it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose the claim limitations; in addition, ‘it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as the new invention does.’” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (emphasis added).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

1611 Ex Parte Wolf 10/157,644 GREEN 103(a)
ROSS PRODUCTS DIVISION OF ABBOTT LABORATORIES EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

1618 Ex Parte Fabo 10/381,889 GREEN 102(a, e)/103(a)
Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte McMahan et al 10/708,971 DIXON 103(a)
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM EXAMINER KE, PENG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Beverly 10/319,732 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a)
Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brochheuser et al 10/562,349 SILVERBERG 103(a)
GKN Driveline/TTG c/o Kristin L. Murphy EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DEBRA M

3773 Ex Parte Hunt 10/815,105 BAHR 102(b)/103(a)
BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

3721 Ex Parte Jackson et al 11/472,602 BARRETT 103(a)
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3773 Ex Parte Schmieding 11/349,280 LEIBOVITZ 103(a)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER OU, JING RUI

3723 Ex Parte Tran et al 11/141,534 HORNER 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER KARLS, SHAY LYNN

Because the claims are amenable to two constructions, we hold the claims as indefinite. See Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Chung et al 11/360,070 NAPPI 103(a)
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER TRAN, TONY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Olofsson et al 09/910,960 STAICOVICI 103(a)
NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex parte WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Patent Owner & Appellant 90/010,459 6,063,776 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: EDMUND J. SEASE FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: K & L GATES, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER JORDAN, KIMBERLY R

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3711 ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner 95/000,122 95/000,120 95/000,121 95/000,123 6,506,130 6,210,293 6,503,156 6,595,873 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a)
Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: Alan M. Grimaldi HOWREY LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINERS TRIMIEW, RAEANN/ GRAHAM, MARK S

EXAMINER REVERSED 102(e) new ground of rejection 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 NuVASIVE, INC., Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ZIMMER SPINE, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,449 6,936,051 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Tarara et al 10/750,934 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting
NOVARTIS EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, LEAH H

1627 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 11/225,939 GREEN 103(a)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER SOROUSH, LAYLA

1611 Ex Parte Caldwell et al 10/029,407 GREEN 103(a)
BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Field et al 10/439,534 GARRIS 103(a)
CABOT CORPORATION EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Srikant et al 10/139,576 JEFFERY 103(a)
JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER DEBROW, JAMES J

2178 Ex Parte Muhanna et al 10/855,727 COURTENAY 103(a)
Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER TSUI, WILSON W

2193 Ex Parte Fu 10/721,708 DIXON 102(b)/103(a)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Jones 10/865,501 STAICOVICI 103(a)
PEDERSEN & COMPANY, PLLC EXAMINER GORDON, STEPHEN T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Bowsher 10/810,245 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)
THOMAS P O'CONNELL EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex Parte Rousset et al 11/659,901 ADAMS 103(a)
Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER POLANSKY, GREGG

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Strong et al 10/072,272 PRATS 103(a)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Benczedi et al 10/862,466 GARRIS 103(a)
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T

1796 Ex Parte Bendler et al 10/903,090 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a)
E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Bock 11/601,748 SAADAT 103(a)
TREYZ LAW GROUP EXAMINER EPPS, GEORGIA Y

2854 Ex Parte Uchida et al 11/078,520 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER MARINI, MATTHEW G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hagan et al 10/931,602 LEE 102(b)/103(a)
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3768 Ex Parte Hart et al 11/229,431 MILLS 103(a)
NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

3714 Ex Parte Moshal 10/504,313 O’NEILL 103(a)
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2161 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,094 6,397,189 TURNER 103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER HEWITT II, CALVIN L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2161 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,097 6,381,575 TURNER 103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER HEWITT II, CALVIN L

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3691 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,147 5,848,398 TURNER 102(e)/103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER KAZIMI, HANI M

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3628 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,095 6,970,834 TURNER 102(b)/103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER DIXON, THOMAS A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Scott et al 11/391,838 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1616 Ex Parte Mattai et al 11/560,677 WALSH 103(a)
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte McBrearty et al 09/899,453 LORIN 112(2)/103(a)
Volel Emile International Business Machines Corporation EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRI V

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

“Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative). Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339. Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

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

1766 Ex Parte Nisbet et al 12/017,289 FREDMAN 103(a)
SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER KAHN, RACHEL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Bi et al 10/685,372 RUGGIERO 102(e)
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE

2491 Ex Parte Dayan et al 09/841,503 BARRY 103(a)
LENOVO (US) IP Law EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/713,552 NAPPI 103(a)
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Haskell et al 10/382,323 MOHANTY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)
Alexander J. Burke SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRAN N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Michelson 10/675,820 ADAMS 103(a)
MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

3711 Ex Parte Sorenson 11/462,415 HORNER 103(a)
SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Bickerstaff 10/418,709 GAUDETTE 103(a)
ARNOLD S. WEINTRAUB EXAMINER CRISPINO, RICHARD D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Chatterjee et al 11/052,216 LUCAS 103(a)
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Gerns 10/467,203 PRATS 103(a)
Howard M. Peters PETERS, VERNY, JONES & SCHMITT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Yuan et al 11/202,861 MacDONALD 102(b)
Siemens Corporation EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Anantharaman 11/211,021 NAGUMO 102(a,e)/102(b)/103(a)
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Barsade et al 10/113,114 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a)
INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Sundstrom et al 10/232,727 TIMM 103(a)
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC)EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Parisi 11/174,701 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a)
BASCH & NICKERSON LLP EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/714,690 MacDONALD 101/103(a)
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER SHAH, PARAS D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Greenaway et al 10/373,143 McCARTHY 112(2)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER BRAHAN, THOMAS J

Although the term “whereby” may serve to introduce results which flow naturally from functional or process limitations preceding the term, see Minton v. National Ass’n of Secs. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the term must be interpreted in light of the claim as a whole and the Specification to give effect to the substance of the claimed subject matter, see Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . .2111.04, 2133.03(c)

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

3654 Ex Parte Starace 11/272,329 HORNER 112(2)/103(a)
FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ogden et al 11/422,889 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GRAY ROBINSON, P.A. EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10/680,591 JEFFERY 103(a) Lester F. Ludwig EXAMINER FLETCHER, MARLON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Klassen et al 10/805,304 KERINS 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER KARLS, SHAY LYNN

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Murray et al 10/920,795 FREDMAN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Kabalnov 11/690,205 PAK 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Taenzer 10/812,718 MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Vista IP Law Group, LLP EXAMINER LEE, PING

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Macauley et al 11/312,943 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER BARBEE, MANUEL L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Dewing et al 11/206,681 BAHR 102(b) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE

3721 Ex Parte Kinigakis et al 10/631,630 HORNER 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Han et al 11/239,249 GREEN 103(a)
Mandel & Adriano EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Pelliconi et al 11/628,628 FREDMAN 103(a)/112(1)
DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

The ranges were amended in an attempt to differentiate the prior art of Pelliconi, which amendment the Examiner identifies as failing to satisfy the written description requirement. See Engineering Development Laboratories v. Radio Corp. of America, 153 F.2d 523, 526 (2nd Cir. 1946) (“The addition of a new element in a combination, while all the rest remain, releases a part of the disclosure to the public demesne, and to that there can obviously be no objection. Applicants ordinarily begin with as broad claims as they can hope to sustain; and they retreat progressively as the examiner forces them by the prior art he turns up in the Office. No other course is really open to them”).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Parham et al 10/184,870 DIXON 102(b)/103(a)
WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Bedoukian 10/949,129 PRATS 103(a)
George W. Rauchfuss, Jr. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P

1615 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/243,695 WALSH 103(a)
FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Wedlock 10/536,202 TIMM 103(a)
Jennifer D Adamson Shell Oil Company EXAMINER CAMPANELL, FRANCIS C

“[M]ere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable.” In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969). This is because a claim to a composition is directed to the composition itself and must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of the structure and chemical components of the composition.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11/491,837 BARRETT 103(a)
LEON D. ROSEN REILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lanphere et al 10/928,452 McCOLLUM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Garcia et al 10/800,585 BARRY 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Vo et al 11/699,152 TURNER 103(a) Accenture c/o Murabito, Hao & Barned LLP EXAMINER AN, IG TAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Parry 09/967,511 HOMERE 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Siegel et al 11/481,210 ADAMS 102(e) JOHN LEZDEY & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1641 Ex Parte Belenky et al 11/089,261 McCOLLUM 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION
EXAMINER FOSTER, CHRISTINE E

1638 Ex Parte Byrum et al 12/071,497 ADAMS 101/112(1) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, ASHWIN D

1643 Ex Parte Rosenblum 11/868,801 FREDMAN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, L.L.P. EXAMINER HUFF, SHEELA JITENDRA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schuller et al 10/609,446 TURNER 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER STAMBER, ERIC W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Chick 11/261,207 BAHR 102(b) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

It is well established that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to satisfy the functional limitations in an apparatus claim, the prior art apparatus must be capable of performing the claimed function. Id. at 1478. Thus, a prior art reference need not envision the device being actually used to perform the claimed functions.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

3775 Ex Parte Parker 09/815,567 BARRETT Concurring-In-Part and Dissenting-In-Part O’NEILL 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/INDY/COOK EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

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

Merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977).

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)