grain processing, antonie, clay

custom search

REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Lin 09968687 - (D) NAPPI 103 THOMSON multimedia Licensing Inc. SHIBRU, HELEN

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Lohtia et al 11229390 - (D) DANG 103 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Reyes 10634635 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(1)/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OYEBISI, OJO O

Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Vresilovic et al 11510747 - (D) BONILLA 103 STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY

Likewise, the Examiner does not show where the cited references suggest that wall thickness in an expandable balloon prosthesis was “recognized to be a resulteffective variable….”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977). Absent more here, the Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 6 and 21.

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05

3737 Ex Parte Strommer et al 11233420 - (D) WALSH 103 SJM/AFD - DYKEMA c/o CPA Global SANTOS, JOSEPH M

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2632 ALIEN TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Third Party Requester and Appellant v. INTERMEC, INC., INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORP., INTERMEC IP CORP. and INTERMEC IP CORP. Patent Owners and Respondents 95001265 6812841 10/056,398 GIANNETTI 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Armand et al 11437364 - (D) KIM 101 101 Thomas F. Bergert c/o Williams Mullen IP Docketing HOLLY, JOHN H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Santilli 11162258 - (D) BONILLA 103 103 LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE D. PORTER, JR. PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Giroud et al 10240195 - (D) GRIMES 103 Nixon & Vanderhye DICKINSON, PAUL W

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Chen et al 11604474 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MAZUMDAR, SONYA

1747 Ex Parte Sun et al 11999913 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC ROGERS, MARTIN K

See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining a reference is considered analogous art if “even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Cornell et al 11009680 - (D) MORGAN 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP COYER, RYAN D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Andrade et al 09841644 - (D) McNAMARA 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Gerber et al 10977336 - (D) HORNER 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. BOCKELMAN, MARK
 
REHEARING
 
GRANTED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Matsuzaki et al 11133463 - (D) FREDMAN double patenting FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP WANG, SHENGJUN

crown packaging, lampi, hyatt, chester, interconnect

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Zhou 11/478,095 JENKS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ALAWADI, SARAH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Padmanabhan et al 10/932,662 COLAIANNI 103 HONEYWELL/STW KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1778 Ex Parte Kung et al 12038879 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. DRODGE, JOSEPH W

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Petronelli 11/182,895 RUGGIERO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 AT&T Legal Department - JW D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Novak et al 11/196,607 SCHEINER 103 COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C. SEVERSON, RYAN J

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2763 Ex parte VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. 90/010,173 6,002,854 08/815,399 COCKS 102 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP WOOD, WILLIAM H original BRODA, SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Domingues 11/614,215 COLAIANNI 102/103 103 General Mills BADR, HAMID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Willats et al 11/491,836 BAUMEISTER 103 102/103 PAMELA A. KACHUR FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3763 NEXUS MEDICAL LLC Requester v. Patent of VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC. (a subsidiary of C.R. BARD, INC.) Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,271 6,447,485 09/797,341 ROBERTSON 112(1)/102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original MENDEZ, MANUEL A

However, consistent with the ‘390 Decision, we do not impart any specific structure from Figures 10A-12 as being required for the claimed channel or portion of the medical line to be “irregularly shaped.” See Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2011) (citing Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., 228 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (concluding that the embodiment drawings did not compel a conclusion that the written description is so narrowly tailored to be limited to the embodiments depicted in the drawings).

Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 56 USPQ2d 1445 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Zhamu et al 11/879,680 COLAIANNI 103/obviousness-type double patenting Bor Z. Jang LEE, REBECCA Y

1772 Ex Parte Butler et al 11/515,679 COLAIANNI 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC DANG, THUAN D

1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/442,688 COLAIANNI 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE YOO, REGINA M

1785 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/613,495 PAK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HESS, BRUCE H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Feeney et al 11/473,617 HUME 102/103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC PHAN, TUANKHANH D

The Federal Circuit has outlined how the prima facie case burden for anticipation is met, and its purpose. Specifically, “the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This burden is met by “adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” Id, at 1370. It is only “when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection” that the prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection violates the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. §132. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2163.04

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Swart et al 09/973,081 NEW 103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D

2421 Ex Parte Boykin et al 09/907,471 DILLON 102/103 W. Edward Johansen MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2455 Ex Parte Jablow 09/835,376 HUME 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC LAZARO, DAVID R

When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by applicant. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Kovales et al 09/782,772 KUMAR 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PHAN, JOSEPH T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/416,668 TURNER 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. JABR, FADEY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Steinke et al 11/122,263 HORNER 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SHAY, DAVID M

bayer, cronyn, MIT, northern telecom, wyer

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Blomberg et al 10394674 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. OLSEN, KAJ K

1726 Ex Parte Ohzuku et al 11797130 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/102/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP WANG, EUGENIA

1765 Ex Parte Bruckmann 10962614 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 PHAN LAW GROUP PLLC ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

1778 Ex Parte Lescoche 10839704 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

1783 Ex Parte Harward 10906392 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP O'HERN, BRENT T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Lee 09875937 - (D) JEFFERY 103 POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC NGUYEN, CINDY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Knittel et al 10146422 - (D) MacDONALD 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Kirshenbaum 11588690 - (D) DIXON 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SAINT CYR, LEONARD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Stoving 11881952 - (D) GONSALVES 102 KING & SPALDING, LLP FISHMAN, MARINA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Ronnewinkel 10868139 - (D) HOMERE 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Saikin 11494050 - (D) BROWNE 103 ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS c/o The Dow Chemical Company ROSE, ROBERT A

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3900 3634 TITAN MARKETING, LLC Requester, Respondent v. TC DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001438 6575310 09/780,553 SONG 103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz ENGLISH, PETER C original GIBSON, ROBERT W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Kyle et al 11187802 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 102/103 Sealed Air Corporation KASHNIKOW, ERIK

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Tsuchida et al 09963136 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 103 Arris Group, Inc. CHOWDHURY, SUMAIYA A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Zilla et al 10627114 - (D) SAINDON 103 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. WILLSE, DAVID H

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3900 2413 Ex parte TREND MICRO INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90011022 5623600 08/533,706 SIU 103 103
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP NGUYEN, MINH DIEU T original DECADY, ALBERT
However, even assuming that the content of the reference was written with the intent to be read by “an outside audience” (Ans. 25) as the Examiner states, the Examiner has not adequately demonstrated that the reference itself was publicly accessible. For example, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the Norman reference was catalogued and shelved in a meaningful way (In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1978); In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), was actually disseminated without restriction (Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), or was such that “anyone could have had access to the [Norman reference] by the exercise of reasonable diligence” (Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corporation, 908 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).

Bayer, In re, 568 F.2d 1357, 196 USPQ 670 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2128.01

Cronyn, In re, 890 F.2d 1158, 13 USPQ2d 1070 (Fed. Cir.1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2128.01

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. A.B. Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 227 USPQ 428 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . .2128.01, 2164.01

Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 15 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2128.01

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Potts et al 11690745 - (D) ADAMS 102/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP HARWARD, SOREN T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Freyer 11596571 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. BELL, WILLIAM P

1783 Ex Parte Shannon et al 11220378 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. O'HERN, BRENT T

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Tian et al 11015222 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. VANDERPUYE, KENNETH N

2625 Ex Parte Phillips 09851038 - (D) HOMERE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, THIERRY L

2625 Ex Parte Sojian et al 10777347 - (D) POTHIER 103 Gerald W. Maliszewski DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Rosinko 11225530 - (D) FREDMAN 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES

3769 Ex Parte Uchikubo et al 10961987 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC JOHNSON III, HENRY M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Haase 10413849 - (R) WARREN 103 RICHARD A. HAASE (INVENTOR) HRUSKOCI, PETER A

rouffet, microsoft

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Bernaski et al 10903321 - (D) OBERMANN 103 PRATT & WHITNEY LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT

see In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principle leading to the modification of the prior art is not adequately explained).

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 1216.01

1777 Ex Parte Vuong 11607158 - (D) KRATZ 102/103 FULWIDER PATTON LLP FORTUNA, ANA M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Muller et al 11168601 - (D) THOMAS 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP QUELER, ADAM M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Levy et al 09952475 - (D) ZECHER 103 Foley & Lardner LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Zerbe et al 11455252 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(1)/112(2)/102 SILICON EDGE LAW GROUP, LLP TORRES, JUAN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Lawrence et al 10887634 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 Steven J. Rosen HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Bennett et al 10906524 - (D) THOMAS 103 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BROPHY, MATTHEW J
Significantly, “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11171953 - (D) PRATS 103 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MEDWAY, SCOTT J

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Charkoudian 10414980 - (D) METZ 103 EMD Millipore Corporation MENON, KRISHNAN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Doyle et al 09943562 - (D) ZECHER 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. BOX IBM DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Shin et al 11011033 - (D) GONSALVES 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Kim et al 11257119 - (D) BISK 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP BENSON, WALTER

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Packard 12004324 - (D) ABRAMS 112(1)/112(1)/103 THOMAS G. PACKARD ACKUN, JACOB K

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2172 Ex parte VISTAPRINT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Appellant 90009295 90009315 6247011 08/982,438 SIU 103 VISTA PRINT USA, INC. WOOD, WILLIAM H original COLBERT, ELLA

3624 Ex parte VISTAPRINT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Appellant 90009313 90009296 6631375 09/204,388 SIU 103 VISTA PRINT USA, INC WOOD, WILLIAM H original COLBERT, ELLA

bradford, johnson2

custom search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Singh et al 11346529 - (D) BARRY 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P.A. UM, DANIEL H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2646 K/S HIMPP Requester, Cross-Appellant, and Respondent v. HEAR-WEAR TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Respondent 95001022 - (D) 7,016,512 10/651,879 COCKS 102/103 102/103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Ramsaier et al 11166926 - (D) WEINBERG 102 FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC VY, HUNG T

2175 Ex Parte Hunleth et al 10768432 - (D) CHEN 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC ORR, HENRY W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Cook et al 11528710 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Siemens Corporation MCALLISTER, STEVEN B

Federal Circuit case law also holds that, absent clarification of a narrower scope, “coupled” is a term of substantial breadth. See Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1266-67, 1270-71 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the district court had properly “found the claim term ‘coupled to’ to mean ‘linked together, connected or joined,’” but had improperly later “ruled that the term ‘coupled to’ was restricted to a direct coupling”); and Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 992 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating the infringer “recognizes that the unmodified term ‘coupled’ generically describes a connection, and does not require a mechanical or physical coupling”).

Johnson Worldwide Associates v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

wyers, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cheshire  10102174 - (D)  BISK 102 PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2198 Ex Parte Galli 09870223 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS KANG, INSUN

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11194058 - (D) GARRIS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP LAIOS, MARIA J

The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 . . . (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly").

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

1727 Ex Parte Kim 11410507 - (D) GARRIS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP MARTIN, ANGELA J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Markanthony et al 11332438 - (D) HOMERE 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. c/o CPA Global SOMERS, MARC S

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Ekudden et al 09789691 - (D) NEW 103 ERICSSON INC. WOZNIAK, JAMES S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Roth et al 10991140 - (D) ASTORINO 102 Ethicon Endo-Surgery/Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP MAI, HAO D

3751 Ex Parte de Leon et al 10632258 - (D) BARRETT 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. BAKER, LORI LYNN

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Wolf et al 11752547 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1773 Ex Parte Kaylor et al 10035013 - (D) PAK 102/103 Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A. ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Pekarek-Kostka 09974100 - (D) MacDONALD 102 PETER PEKAREK-KOSTKA AL HASHEMI, SANA A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Naito 11118325 - (D) DANG 102 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO ARMOUCHE, HADI S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte ALLEN et al 11420838 - (D) SPAHN 103
SHELL OIL COMPANY OLSON, LARS A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Gregorich et al 11138022 - (D) FREDMAN 102 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Ord et al 11441533 - (D) PAK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC JOHNSON, KEVIN M

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Dalencon et al 11338908 - (D) PRATS Dissenting-In-Part McCOLLUM 112(1)/103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte JAKUS et al 11894999 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 Edward J. Timmer LIN, KUANG Y

1783 Ex Parte Moran et al 11095103 - (D) HANLON 103 Lewis Rice FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10769941 - (D) DANG 103 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP SAEED, USMAAN

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Dominique et al 10259753 - (D) GONSALVES 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. JOSEPH, JAISON

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 90009483 7176489 10/872,527 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original SOWARD, IDA M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Johansson 10571003 - (D) HOELTER 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP KRAMER, DEAN J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Ando et al 10608335 - (D) HOELTER 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. FRISBY, KESHA

3731 Ex Parte Engin et al 11584026 - (D) GRIMES 112(2) 112(2)/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated TANNER, JOCELIN C

3734 Ex Parte Kusleika et al 11517222 - (D) GRIMES 103 Covidien COLELLO, ERIN L

3738 Ex Parte Dave 11327700 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Dergosits & Noah LLP STRASZHEIM, REBECCA L
 
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Duncan et al 10769941 - (D) MILLS 103 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP SAEED, USMAAN

mayo, prometheus

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Dunlap 11384004 - (D) GRIMES 101/103 MOORE PATENTS SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

Further, in the time since the Examiner’s Answer was written, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided additional guidance regarding the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct 1289 (2012).

In Prometheus, the Court considered claims that included the active steps of administering a drug to a subject and determining the level of a metabolite in the subject. See Id. at 1295. The claims also included “wherein” clauses, id., that “set forth laws of nature—namely, relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or cause harm.” Id. at 1296. The Court held that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the “steps in the claimed processes (apart from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field. At the same time, upholding the patents would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting their use in the making of further discoveries.” Id. at 1294.

The rejection on appeal here, having been written before Prometheus was decided, does not address the standard set out in that case. In short, we conclude that the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on an improper interpretation of the claims and does not take into account recent controlling precedent.
 
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Abe et al 10276483 - (D) GARRIS 103 Hogan Lovells US LLP MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Chen et al 11166304 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 Broadcom/BHGL GAMI, TEJAL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Koste et al 11277294 - (D) BISK 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HANSEN, JONATHAN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 11118331 - (D) SAINDON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. HALL, ARTHUR O

3738 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10802314 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Chantz 12014842 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS DANEGA, RENEE A

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Langstrom et al 11386973 - (D) PRATS 103 Amersham Health, Inc. Schlientz, Leah

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Markes 10659291 - (D) GARRIS 103 Dekel Patent Ltd. Beit HaRofim ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hentschel 10527861 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TSAI, SHENG JEN

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Seligmann et al 10891867 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP - Avaya Inc. EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000483 90/009,482 6,815,321 10/377,732 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original LOUIE, WAI SING

2814 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. Patent Owner & Appellant 90009481 5,905,274 08/918,119 BLANKENSHIP 102/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP. (PA) KIELIN, ERIK J original NGO, NGAN V

2884 Ex Parte Joung et al 10627844 - (D) ELLURU 103 Siemens Corporation MALEVIC, DJURA

2885 Ex Parte Hodulik 11903126 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Michael Hodulik SEMBER, THOMAS M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Hess et al 11060026 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC SAUCIER, SANDRA E

skoner, boston scientific

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kleinwaechter 11225949 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PURDY, KYLE A

1612 Ex Parte Guilford et al 11163979 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 Daneker, McIntire, Schumm, Prince, Manning & Widmann, P.C. Kishore, Gollamudi

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12004094 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO ABDI, KAMBIZ

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Greene et al 11383513 - (D) WOOD 112(1)/103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

3761 Ex Parte Tomes et al 11557423 - (D) GRIMES 103 COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED HANRAHAN, BENEDICT L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Sturley 10977592 - (D) PRAISS 112(1) 103 Michael D. Wiggins KHATRI, PRASHANT J

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10705481 - (D) JENKS 103 K&L Gates LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

1643 Ex Parte Karbassi et al 11694370 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM Holleran, Anne

“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention. Just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness.” In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Corrigan 11650285 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/112(1)/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KING, FELICIA C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Eerd et al 11358597 - (D) WINSOR 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K

2174 Ex Parte Retlich 10954128 - (D) DIXON 103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY KUMAR, ANIL N

2179 Ex Parte Ahlert et al 11138689 - (D) KOHUT 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP HASSAN, RASHEDUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Kessler et al 09841140 - (D) ZECHER 103 THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Roohparvar 11127619 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/103 LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. KING, DOUGLAS

“Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte MacKouse 11104959 - (D) TURNER 112(1)/103 FOLEY & LARDNER NORMAN, SAMICA L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte D'ADDARIO et al 12144932 - (D) PRATS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

baxter intern.1

mobile search

REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Duri et al 12127101 - (D) KIM 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP BOVEJA, NAMRATA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Aida et al 11660106 - (D) SAINDON 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MORGAN, EILEEN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Young 10899718 - (D) Per Curiam 101/103 103 Baker Botts LLP KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex parte LONZA BIOLOGICS PLC. Appellant 90011025 7258998 10/510,280 LEBOVITZ 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC KUNZ, GARY L original LILLING, HERBERT J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Bayne 11428598 - (D) KIM 103 ANTHONY JEREMIAH BAYNE HOAR, COLLEEN A
 
Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work)

e-pass, techradium

mobile search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hyatt 11608373 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(2)/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

Here, Appellant’s recitation of “that has been partially transferred” refers to a completed result of a prior step (i.e., “transferring only a part of the incoming media content to the electronic device”), such that there is a temporal limitation implicit from a plain reading of the claim language. See e.g. E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp, 473 F.3d 1213, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that because the language of most of the steps of its method claim refer to the completed results of the prior step (e.g., “transferring a data set ...; storing said transferred data set”), Appellant must show that all of those steps were performed in order). The Examiner has not directed us to any language in the Specification that would suggest otherwise.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Manens 10987795 - (D) SAINDON 102 102/103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

3731 Ex Parte Shekalim 11885158 - (D) WALSH 102/103 102 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. CRONIN, ASHLEY L

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Maki et al 11371239 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP BELL, WILLIAM P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Scherpa et al 11470054 - (D) CURCURI 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ZAHR, ASHRAF A

Appellants rely on a definition from Wikipedia. Notably, Wikipedia disclaims the validity of its website‟s content and is unreliable. See Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect Inc., 2009 WL 1152985, *4 n.5 (E.D. Tex. 2009).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Fradkin et al 10535466 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V

mobile search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART  
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Leimala  10511290 - (D) PRAISS 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC YANG, JIE