baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

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


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

gaubert, langer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 FACEBOOK, INC. Requester and Appellant v. LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001261 7,139,761 10/732,744 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 King and Spalding LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original MIZRAHI, DIANE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Beringer et al 10285280 - (D) KIM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP PATS, JUSTIN

3632 Ex Parte Shevick 10966279 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 HEISLER & ASSOCIATES MARSH, STEVEN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Blum et al 09994860 - (D) BAHR 101 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP BOECKMANN, JASON J  

The basis of the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is that the disclosed invention is wholly inoperative and therefore lacks credible utility.

As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true.

In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974).

Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) 2107.02, 2107.03, 2124

Further, “the PTO must do more than merely question operability it must set forth factual reasons which would lead one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of operability.” In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1224-25 (CCPA 1975).

Gaubert, In re, 524 F.2d 1222, 187 USPQ 664 (CCPA 1975) 2107.03

voss, borkowski, arkley, fisher, aller, dreyfus, waite

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11165342 - (D) DIXON 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP LIU, HEXING

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11140790 - (D) KERINS 103 CPA Global CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY LEE, BENJAMIN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Kobayashi 11622380 - (D) SAINDON 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SENNIGER POWERS LLP SHAKERI, HADI

See In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, 816 n.11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”) (citing In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974) (the Board may not force the granting of patents on inventions that do not comply with the statutes)); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 589 (CCPA 1972) (rejecting the notion that the reversal of a rejection indicates that a patent should be granted); In re Fisher, 448 F.2d 1406, 1407 (CCPA 1971) (“we pass only on rejections actually made and do not decree the issuance of patents … the Patent Office can always reopen prosecution”).

Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) 715.07

3763 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11646744 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 ST. JUDE MEDICAL, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DIVISION Kite & Key, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Gillis et al 11592452 - (D) SAINDON 102 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte BANOWSKI et al 11960348 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Henkel Corporation KARPINSKI, LUKE E

“[W]here the general conditions of a claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (citing In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931 (CCPA 1934); In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104 (CCPA 1948)).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

1631 Ex Parte Homayouni et al 11215635 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE LLP LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11613625 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. CHAN, SING P

1746 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11330776 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. GOFF II, JOHN L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Wigard et al 11350394 - (D) POTHIER 102 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10676249 - (D) JEFFERY 102 Lester F. Ludwig FLETCHER, MARLON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Hardison 10674758 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 WILLIAMSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC FLICK, JASON E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2748 Ex parte GRYPHON NETWORKS CORP. 90010978 6130937 08/853,563 PERRY 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original FOSTER, ROLAND G

bozek, mintz, perfect web, paperless

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Maguire et al 11876965 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL MOHADDES, LADAN

1734 Ex Parte Eckhardt et al 10257760 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Akimoto et al 11276662 - (D) OBERMANN 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KOCH, GEORGE R

1773 Ex Parte May et al 11838384 - (D) OBERMANN 103 102/103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LUDLOW, JAN M

An examiner’s reasoning “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill,” which does “not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (examiner may rely on “common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference”). However, “the mere recitation of the words ‘common sense’ without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation.” Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Giniger 11355500 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Berenbaum Weinshienk PC SUTTON, DARRYL C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Cruickshank et al 09995056 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 ARRIS PATEL, DHAIRYA A

2488 Ex Parte Battles 10859029 - (D) FRAHM 101/102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2665 Ex Parte Jeon et al 11907460 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. AHMED, SAMIR ANWAR

2665 Ex Parte Tu et al 11003229 - (D) EVANS 102/103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. JOHNS, ANDREW W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Russell et al 11581620 - (D) OSINSKI 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3651 Ex Parte Hart et al 12115729 - (D) DANIELS 102 BERENATO & WHITE, LLC HESS, DOUGLAS A  

REHEARING  
DENIED Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Zhao-Wilson et al 11378032 - (D) PRATS 102 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MARTINELL, JAMES

See 35 U.S.C. § 6 (Board’s duty is to review adverse decisions of examiners); see also, Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 663 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (rejection in final rejection not commented on in examiner’s answer not an adverse decision considered by Board).

Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 231 USPQ 649 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2133.01

angstadt, atlas powder2, falkner, vaeck, masham

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Machhammer et al 10815873 - (D) PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. OH, TAYLOR V

Accordingly, it is “well settled that patent applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by their claims, even in an unpredictable art.” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

For example, in Falkner v. Inglis, the court affirmed the conclusion of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that claims to a modified pox virus vaccine were enabled, despite the fact that the specification focused on viruses other than pox virus, provided no examples directed to pox virus, and discussed pox virus only in general terms relating to the inventive disclosure. Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01, 2144.08, 2164.01, 2164.01(c), 2164.03, 2164.06(b), 2164.08

Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 79 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2163

However, it is well settled that a claim does not lack enablement merely because it encompasses inoperative embodiments. See Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976).

Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2111.03, 2164.01, 2164.08(b)

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)

1646 Ex Parte Chen et al 10723955 - (D) McCOLLUM 101/112(1) Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP LI, RUIXIANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Patton et al 10845438 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Gerald W. Maliszewski BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Godwin et al 11302759 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 DOCKET CLERK JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Belanger et al 11789584 - (D) MacDONALD 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ABELSON, RONALD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Matocha 11295915 - (D) McKEOWN 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LUKE, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Foerster et al 10734671 - (D) JENKS 102 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

A “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).

Masham, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) 2114

falkner, lizardtech, seid

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte FISHER et al 09293670 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP WESSENDORF, TERESA D

As the Federal Circuit has noted:

A claim will not be invalidated on section 112 grounds simply because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language. That is because the patent specification is written for a person of skill in the art, and such a person comes to the patent with the knowledge of what has come before. Placed in that context, it is unnecessary to spell out every detail of the invention in the specification; only enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention and to enable such a person to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.

Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, PTY, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2005)).

LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 76 USPQ2d 1724 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2161.01, 2163

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Stewart et al 11784719 - (D) OBERMANN 103 USDA, ARS, OTT BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Knutson et al 10084773 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Fuchs et al 11188545 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY LOW, LINDSAY M

3761 Ex Parte Carlucci et al 10239599 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3767 Ex Parte Ghannoum et al 10641947 - (D) REIMERS Concurring McCARTHY 112(2) ALCON GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Brandon 12123513 - (D) BEST 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC DOUYETTE, KENNETH J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Damm et al 10303882 - (D) WARD 103 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. PATEL, DHAIRYA A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11216531 - (D) MORRISON 103 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. KUMAR, RAKESH

As to the “ornamental shape”, it has long been held that features that relate to “ornamentation only and have no mechanical function whatsoever” cannot be relied upon for patentability of a claim in a utility patent application. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947).

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) 2144.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Yoo 11344630 - (D) NAGUMO 103 DUANE MORRIS LLP (TSMC) RUGGLES, JOHN S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Thomsen 11314709 - (D) HUGHES 101/102 SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC HOCKER, JOHN P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Akram et al 11384069 - (D) ARPIN 103 TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY STARK, JARRETT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Fielden 11104231 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Clifford Kraft BELLINGER, JASON R

3634 Ex Parte Newman 11096784 - (D) OSINSKI 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP PUROL, DAVID M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Waggoner et al 11291069 - (D) POWELL 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP LEWIS, JUSTIN V
 
REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90010044 90008229 90/010,130 5974120 08/480,185 CHEN 102 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Hatlestad et al 10787045 - (R) TURNER 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. RANGREJ, SHEETAL

Oct 11, 2012

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte George et al 11564134 - (D) TIMM 103 103 PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1763 Ex Parte Kannan et al 11503331 - (D) GARRIS 103 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP) MESH, GENNADIY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Wang 11912421 - (D) BEST 112(1)/103 GLOBAL IP SERVICES LEYSON, JOSEPH S  

REHEARING  

DENIED

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Li et al 10643628 - (D) C. THOMAS 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE SAEED, USMAAN

hoch

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Drouillard 11056953 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Hovey Williams LLP FRAZIER, BARBARA S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Lin 11779741 - (D) OWENS 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SULLIVAN, CALEEN O

1732 Ex Parte Onishi et al 11661213 - (D) NAGUMO 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1741 Ex Parte Simon 11514456 - (D) GARRIS 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. FRANKLIN, JODI COHEN

1754 Ex Parte Reiter 11191014 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Tabarrok & Zahrt (SEAGATE-10/11) BAND, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Yao et al 11866334 - (D) DILLON 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EVANS, JEFFERSON A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Grant, Jr. et al 10711705 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 Bank of America c/o Moore and Van Allen, PLLC NORMAN, SAMICA L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Stephens 10874060 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 103 Miskin & Tsui-Yip LLP MILLER, BENA B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Ryde et al 11979253 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting 103 Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner AHMED, HASAN SYED

See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3 (CCPA 1970)(“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a „minor capacity,‟ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection.”).

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

 

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Little et al 11044959 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ADDMG - RIM RAHIM, MONJUR

2452 Ex Parte Plastina et al 10623235 - (D) HUME 103 SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MSFT) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2669 Ex Parte Sarraf et al 10342704 - (D) HOMERE 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc TUCKER, WESLEY J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Richards et al 11104219 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 Procopio - SPE DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

antor media, dilnot1, korpi, lincoln

custom search

REVERSED 
1700 - Chemical and Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte HALLER et al 11/162,960 GAUDETTE 103 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP MEHTA, MEGHA S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 - Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, Products
376 Ex Parte Sell 11/131,476 SNEDDEN 102/103 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C ZHANG, JENNA

AFFIRMED
1700 - Chemical and Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Berti et al 11/654,425 McKELVEY 102 David J. Alexander ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

Lastly, we note that the Examiner’s “continuous” process holding is consistent with applicable precedent, including In re Di[l]not, 319 F.2d 188, 194 (CCPA 1963)(cited by the Examiner—Answer, page 6.). See also In re Korpi, 160 F.2d 564,566 (CCPA 1947) (case in which it was held to be obvious to convert batch process into continuous process) and In re Lincoln, 126 F.2d 477, 479 (CCPA 1942).

Dilnot, In re, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) 2144.04

We have considered applicant’s remaining arguments and find none that warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejections. Cf In re Antor Media Corp. 12 F.3d ___, ___, 2012 WL 3055928, 103 USPQ2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Koyata et al 11688041 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Septon 10899975 - (D) KIM 103 103 Gregory W. Osterloth Holland & Hart, LLP AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Deitsch et al 11552700 - (D) COURTENAY 103 NBCUniversal Media, LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C. TELAN, MICHAEL R

Cf. Functional descriptive material consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. See Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (“Guidelines”), 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142 (November 22, 2005), especially pages 151-152. (The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure includes substantively the same guidance. See MPEP, 8th edition (revised Aug. 2012), § 2106.01.)

New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructuons

Patentable subject matter

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Saadat et al 10898683 - (D) FREDMAN 103 USGI Medical, Inc. NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

Oct 4, 2012

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte SETBACKEN et al 11961864 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LUU, THANH X

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 09815731 - (D) FETTING 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP GORT, ELAINE L

3691 Ex Parte Chauvin et al 09944549 - (D) FETTING 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY VYAS, ABHISHEK

rijckaert

custom search

REVERSED 

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Dolores-Martinez-Serna Villagran et al  10913002 - (D)  NAGUMO 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY TRAN, LIEN THUY

In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“That which may be inherent is not necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.”).

Rijckaert, In re, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2112 , 2141.02 , 2144.08

Oct 2, 2012

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART  
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3783 Ex Parte Gerards et al  11209372 - (D)  HILL 102 102/103 Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. COLEMAN, KEITH A

strahilevitz, de seversky, TAP

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte FISHER et al 09293670 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP WESSENDORF, TERESA D

Moreover, “[working] examples are not required to satisfy section 112, first paragraph.” In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232 (CCPA 1982).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Stewart et al 11784719 - (D) OBERMANN 103 USDA, ARS, OTT BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Knutson et al 10084773 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Fuchs et al 11188545 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY LOW, LINDSAY M

3761 Ex Parte Carlucci et al 10239599 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KIDWELL, MICHELE M

To incorporate subject matter by reference, a host document must contain language “clearly identifying the subject matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found.” In re De Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973).

De Seversky, In re, 474 F.2d 671, 177 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1973) . . . .201.06(c), 608.01(p), 1504.05


3767 Ex Parte Ghannoum et al 10641947 - (D) REIMERS Concurring McCARTHY 112(2) ALCON GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Brandon 12123513 - (D) BEST 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC DOUYETTE, KENNETH J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Damm et al 10303882 - (D) WARD 103 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. PATEL, DHAIRYA A

In this context, the term “contain” is construed as an open ended term. See TAP Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Owl Pharms., L.L.C., 419 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11216531 - (D) MORRISON 103 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. KUMAR, RAKESH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Yoo 11344630 - (D) NAGUMO 103 DUANE MORRIS LLP (TSMC) RUGGLES, JOHN S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Thomsen 11314709 - (D) HUGHES 101/102 SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC HOCKER, JOHN P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Akram et al 11384069 - (D) ARPIN 103 TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY STARK, JARRETT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Fielden 11104231 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Clifford Kraft BELLINGER, JASON R

3634 Ex Parte Newman 11096784 - (D) OSINSKI 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP PUROL, DAVID M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Waggoner et al 11291069 - (D) POWELL 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP LEWIS, JUSTIN V  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90010044 90008229 90/010,130 5974120 08/480,185 CHEN 102 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Hatlestad et al 10787045 - (R) TURNER 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. RANGREJ, SHEETAL