custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte BAEK et al 11678092 - (D) ADAMS 103 Kile Park Goekjian Reed & McManus PLLC KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Brown et al 09967553 - (D) SMITH 102 IBM54 KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M
2194 Ex Parte Sreejith 10431771 - (D) BENOIT 102 DOCKET CLERK HOANG, PHUONG N
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte McMurry et al 11277201 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. PHUNG, LUAT
2486 Ex Parte Fernandez et al 09823509 - (D) HUME 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. VO, TUNG T
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Karabinis 11036230 - (D) McNAMARA 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC KARIKARI, KWASI
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Field 11535092 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bard Biopsy Systems C. R. Bard, Inc. HOLWERDA, KATHLEEN SONNETT
3731 Ex Parte Frion et al 11943289 - (D) WALSH 103 SHAY GLENN LLP MILES, JONATHAN WADE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte King et al 12180262 - (D) GREEN 103 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP LOVE, TREVOR M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Steely et al 10760659 - (D) COURTENAY Dissenting HOMERE 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHERY, MARDOCHEE
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Hoornaert et al 09789197 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 RATNERPRESTIA SHAW, YIN CHEN
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001002 6422595 09/639,299 FITZPATRICK 102/103 102/103 BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original SLITERIS, JOSELYNN Y
The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims in Reexamination: A Standard Making It Easier to Invalidate Patent Claims
CAFC Applies The Wrong Claim Interpretation Standard in Patent Reexamination
“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant (or, in this case, the patentee), because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (appeal from reexamination proceeding).4
Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111
American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111, 2111.01
...
fn4 We observe that although not pointed out or argued by the Patent Owner in its brief, the ‘595 patent expired in 2010 for failure to pay a maintenance fee. (See Notification of Expiration of Patent Under Reexamination filed Aug. 10, 2010). “[I]n reexaminations proceedings in which the PTO is considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim construction may properly and should be applied. Such a policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that would render it invalid.” Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (BPAI 1991) (quoting Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655, 1656 (BPAI 1986)) (both nonprecedential). However, we decline to apply this policy to the present case. Such policy is premised on an inability to amend the claim, but the policy is not applicable in the present case wherein the Patent Owner had ample opportunity to amend the claims of the ‘595 patent prior to its expiration and the expiration of the ‘595 patent was volitional by the Patent Owner’s intentional failure to pay the required maintenance fee.
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Nakayoshi et al 10598967 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC LAM, CATHY FONG FONG
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Butler et al 11261752 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCUE, BRITTANY N
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Davis et al 10123383 - (D) ARPIN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. RAMAN, USHA
2432 Ex Parte Alone et al 10898634 - (D) KUMAR 103 LENOVO (US) IP Law LANIER, BENJAMIN E
2448 Ex Parte Brownholtz et al 10894526 - (D) DROESCH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Marston 11094851 - (D) FETTING 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP MILLER, ALAN S
3632 Ex Parte Raby 11963828 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Schramm-Personal-ACT KING, ANITA M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al 10730095 - (D) SAINDON 101/102 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC HU, KANG
3731 Ex Parte Moser et al 11576376 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TANNER, JOCELIN C
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
brana, bigio, clay, innovention toys
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Senga et al 11818783 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz AEDER, SEAN E
Nonetheless, “[u]sefulness in patent law, and in particular in the context of pharmaceutical inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research and development.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the Brana court referred to usefulness, the rejection on appeal was based on nonenablement. See 51 F.3d at 1564.)
Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) , 2107.01, 2107.03, 2164.01(c), 2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Dheap et al 11390398 - (D) WEINBERG Dissenting SMITH 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. LE, JESSICA N
2164 Ex Parte Kwan 11222321 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2)/103 IBM ENDICOTT (ANTHONY ENGLAND) GEBRESENBET, DINKU W
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Sano et al 10909109 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Lee et al 10891423 - (D) DROESCH 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NEWAY, SAMUEL G
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Herremans et al 11427599 - (D) THOMAS 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PATEL, HARSHAD R
2887 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11641556 - (D) PETTIGREW 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. VO, TUYEN KIM
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Ruehl 11279321 - (D) SPAHN 103 GODFREY & KAHN S.C. GILBERT, WILLIAM V
3635 Ex Parte Lyngstad 10492867 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. MICHENER, JOSHUA J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Henriksson 10592601 - (D) ABRAMS 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
3721 Ex Parte Denney et al 11401116 - (D) BAHR 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
3721 Ex Parte Irwin 10835327 - (D) RICE 103 Wells St. John P.S. WEEKS, GLORIA R
3721 Ex Parte Nicolantonio et al 10959796 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY WEEKS, GLORIA R
3737 Ex Parte Haider 10742283 - (D) DILLON 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Mehra 10694323 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 CHEMTURA CORPORATION Requester v. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95000391 6,958,423 09/888,246 GUEST 102/103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original BADIO, BARBARA P
1618 Ex Parte Kling 10440395 - (D) SCHEINER 103 WINSTEAD PC VU, JAKE MINH
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Rosenbloom et al 11167587 - (D) KUMAR 102 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE
2191 Ex Parte Dye et al 10772518 - (D) ZECHER 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC CHEN, QING
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte James et al 11097724 - (D) HOMERE 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TILAHUN, ALAZAR
2427 Ex Parte Townsend et al 11403869 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
2465 Ex Parte Limaye et al 10284619 - (D) SMITH 103 Wilson & Ham ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 10734866 - (D) NEW 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP COLUCCI, MICHAEL C
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent 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.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)
Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
2687 Ex Parte Ho et al 11297767 - (D) BENOIT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HEINZ, ALLEN J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Chen et al 12055010 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 ALIGN TECHNOLOGY C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP MAI, HAO D
3768 Ex Parte Hardy et al 10955630 - (D) BAHR 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Senga et al 11818783 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz AEDER, SEAN E
Nonetheless, “[u]sefulness in patent law, and in particular in the context of pharmaceutical inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research and development.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the Brana court referred to usefulness, the rejection on appeal was based on nonenablement. See 51 F.3d at 1564.)
Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) , 2107.01, 2107.03, 2164.01(c), 2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Dheap et al 11390398 - (D) WEINBERG Dissenting SMITH 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. LE, JESSICA N
2164 Ex Parte Kwan 11222321 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2)/103 IBM ENDICOTT (ANTHONY ENGLAND) GEBRESENBET, DINKU W
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Sano et al 10909109 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Lee et al 10891423 - (D) DROESCH 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NEWAY, SAMUEL G
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Herremans et al 11427599 - (D) THOMAS 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PATEL, HARSHAD R
2887 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11641556 - (D) PETTIGREW 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. VO, TUYEN KIM
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Ruehl 11279321 - (D) SPAHN 103 GODFREY & KAHN S.C. GILBERT, WILLIAM V
3635 Ex Parte Lyngstad 10492867 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. MICHENER, JOSHUA J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Henriksson 10592601 - (D) ABRAMS 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
3721 Ex Parte Denney et al 11401116 - (D) BAHR 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
3721 Ex Parte Irwin 10835327 - (D) RICE 103 Wells St. John P.S. WEEKS, GLORIA R
3721 Ex Parte Nicolantonio et al 10959796 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY WEEKS, GLORIA R
3737 Ex Parte Haider 10742283 - (D) DILLON 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Mehra 10694323 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 CHEMTURA CORPORATION Requester v. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95000391 6,958,423 09/888,246 GUEST 102/103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original BADIO, BARBARA P
1618 Ex Parte Kling 10440395 - (D) SCHEINER 103 WINSTEAD PC VU, JAKE MINH
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Rosenbloom et al 11167587 - (D) KUMAR 102 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE
2191 Ex Parte Dye et al 10772518 - (D) ZECHER 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC CHEN, QING
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte James et al 11097724 - (D) HOMERE 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TILAHUN, ALAZAR
2427 Ex Parte Townsend et al 11403869 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
2465 Ex Parte Limaye et al 10284619 - (D) SMITH 103 Wilson & Ham ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 10734866 - (D) NEW 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP COLUCCI, MICHAEL C
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent 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.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)
Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
2687 Ex Parte Ho et al 11297767 - (D) BENOIT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HEINZ, ALLEN J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Chen et al 12055010 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 ALIGN TECHNOLOGY C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP MAI, HAO D
3768 Ex Parte Hardy et al 10955630 - (D) BAHR 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
reuter, aristocrat, katz interactive, olson
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Msika 10808701 - (D) FREDMAN 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU
See In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1023 (CCPA 1981) (expert's opinion on ultimate legal issue entitled to no weight).
1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC SHIN, DANA H
1652 Ex Parte Koizumi et al 10940026 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Sexton et al 11697695 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP CHEN, KEATH T
1777 Ex Parte Kopperschmidt et al 10580869 - (D) NAGUMO 102/112(6)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIONTA, ALLISON
When a claim is drawn to a computer implemented function invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a general purpose computer is usually sufficient for the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function, but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The structure needed to transform a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer is an algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 23 (5th ed. 2002).
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Adendorff et al 10663345 - (D) FETTING 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC PARKER, BRANDI P
3646 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529055 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10245193 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C FRIDIE JR, WILLMON
3731 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10325125 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP NGUYEN, TUAN VAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Osawa et al 11286356 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. IP, SIKYIN
1746 Ex Parte Varaprasad 12222071 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BLADES, JOHN A
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Syed et al 12817703 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BERHANU, SAMUEL
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Koyata et al 11121937 - (D) GREEN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DO, PENSEE T
“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.” In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954).
1649 Ex Parte SCHAEBITZ et al 11931326 - (D) PRATS 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BORGEEST, CHRISTINA M
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Burns et al 10606436 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2)/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global IP, SIKYIN
1747 Ex Parte Thielen et al 11930805 - (D) METZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R
1763 Ex Parte Kawaguchi et al 12520913 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC USELDING, JOHN E
1791 Ex Parte Cupp et al 10945768 - (D) KRATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP SAYALA, CHHAYA D
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11285614 - (D) NEW 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP DUONG, KHANH B
2854 Ex Parte Schmitt 11528928 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BANH, DAVID H
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11190347 - (D) FETTING 101/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ADE, OGER GARCIA
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Herzog et al 10415195 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
3735 Ex Parte Bauman 11516388 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. DORNA, CARRIE R
3737 Ex Parte Schwartz 10574184 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANTOS, JOSEPH M
3763 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 10520180 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Burns Doane Swecker & Mathis BOUCHELLE, LAURA A
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Msika 10808701 - (D) FREDMAN 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU
See In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1023 (CCPA 1981) (expert's opinion on ultimate legal issue entitled to no weight).
1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC SHIN, DANA H
1652 Ex Parte Koizumi et al 10940026 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Sexton et al 11697695 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP CHEN, KEATH T
1777 Ex Parte Kopperschmidt et al 10580869 - (D) NAGUMO 102/112(6)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIONTA, ALLISON
When a claim is drawn to a computer implemented function invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a general purpose computer is usually sufficient for the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function, but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The structure needed to transform a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer is an algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 23 (5th ed. 2002).
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Adendorff et al 10663345 - (D) FETTING 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC PARKER, BRANDI P
3646 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529055 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10245193 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C FRIDIE JR, WILLMON
3731 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10325125 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP NGUYEN, TUAN VAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Osawa et al 11286356 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. IP, SIKYIN
1746 Ex Parte Varaprasad 12222071 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BLADES, JOHN A
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Syed et al 12817703 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BERHANU, SAMUEL
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Koyata et al 11121937 - (D) GREEN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DO, PENSEE T
“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.” In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954).
1649 Ex Parte SCHAEBITZ et al 11931326 - (D) PRATS 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BORGEEST, CHRISTINA M
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Burns et al 10606436 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2)/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global IP, SIKYIN
1747 Ex Parte Thielen et al 11930805 - (D) METZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R
1763 Ex Parte Kawaguchi et al 12520913 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC USELDING, JOHN E
1791 Ex Parte Cupp et al 10945768 - (D) KRATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP SAYALA, CHHAYA D
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11285614 - (D) NEW 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP DUONG, KHANH B
2854 Ex Parte Schmitt 11528928 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BANH, DAVID H
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11190347 - (D) FETTING 101/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ADE, OGER GARCIA
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Herzog et al 10415195 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
3735 Ex Parte Bauman 11516388 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. DORNA, CARRIE R
3737 Ex Parte Schwartz 10574184 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANTOS, JOSEPH M
3763 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 10520180 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Burns Doane Swecker & Mathis BOUCHELLE, LAURA A
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
mars, biomedino
custom search
REVERSEDTech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Park et al 11299466 - (D) HUME 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. REGO, DOMINIC E
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Joo 12078114 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP BEKERMAN, MICHAEL
3664 Ex Parte Irish et al 10774301 - (D) PETRAVICK 102 CASCADIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANCHO, RONNIE M
3693 Ex Parte Singhal 10091882 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/103 Tara Chand Sighal MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Haselhuhn et al 11579707 - (D) GRIMES 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
3738 Ex Parte Wang 12101041 - (D) SNEDDEN obviousness-type double patenting SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE
3767 Ex Parte Courtney et al 10903523 - (D) GREEN 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G
3784 Ex Parte Street et al 10220678 - (D) KILE 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP JIANG, CHEN WEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2134 CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. SSL SERVICES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95001447 6907530 09/764,459 ARBES 112(1) 112(2)/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original TRAN, TONGOC
Because it is based on claim interpretation, indefiniteness is a question of law. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2181, 2185
See Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (transitional, open-ended terms “comprising” and “including” are synonymous).
Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 71 USPQ2d 1837 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111.03
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 AIRCRAFT MEDICAL LTD. Requester and Appellant v. VERATHON INC. Patent Owner, Cross-Appellant, and Respondent 95000161 6543447 09/732,129 GUEST 314 112(1)/314/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 314/102/103 Foster Pepper PLLC FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original MITCHELL, TEENA KAY
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Danenberg 10426836 - (D) WALSH obviousness-type double patenting KENYON & KENYON LLP MUMMERT, STEPHANIE KANE
1655 Ex parte TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. Appellant 90010765 7544500 10/692,105 LEBOVITZ 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP CAMPELL, BRUCE R original FLOOD, MICHELE C
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Uthe 11233885 - (D) DILLON 101/102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP QUELER, ADAM M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Mobin et al 11095770 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP KASSA, ZEWDU A
2695 Ex Parte Park et al 10678750 - (D) HUME 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP BIBBINS, LATANYA
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Leyman et al 10555822 - (D) KOHUT 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP JOHNSTON, PHILLIP A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Latz 11351427 - (D) KIM 103 THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC LONG, FONYA M
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Tuma et al 11356737 - (D) PRATS 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DANEGA, RENEE A
Monday, December 10, 2012
rambus
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Appellant v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001105 6751696 09/835,263 EASTHOM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN
2155 Ex Parte Grosset et al 11565449 - (D) SIU 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. NG, AMY
2181 RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001128 6378020 09/545,648 EASTHOM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f) 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Giles et al 10896676 - (D) DIXON 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PALIWAL, YOGESH
2444 Ex Parte Graves et al 11260514 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SERRAO, RANODHI N
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Febo et al 10412846 - (D) PRATS 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Patel et al 11564563 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 Yee & Associates, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Cantor et al 11497766 - (D) STEPHENS 102(b) 112(1)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. WANG, JACK K
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bangel et al 11095998 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/102/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kohli et al 11425738 - (D) BUSCH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP PAPPAS, PETER
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Jung et al 11026663 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. NGUYEN, DUC M
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2831 Ex parte GIFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. 90011652 7,015,395 10/037,814 MARTIN 112(1)/103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP HOTALING, JOHN M original NGUYEN, CHAU N
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Appellant v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001122 6,426,916 09/796,206 EASTHOM 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN
Accord Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1085-86, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (defining Rambus’s claim term, “integrated circuit device,” as a “circuit constructed on a single monolithic substrate, commonly called a ‘chip’”) (relying on trade dictionaries, citations omitted).
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Appellant v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001105 6751696 09/835,263 EASTHOM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN
2155 Ex Parte Grosset et al 11565449 - (D) SIU 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. NG, AMY
2181 RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001128 6378020 09/545,648 EASTHOM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f) 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Giles et al 10896676 - (D) DIXON 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PALIWAL, YOGESH
2444 Ex Parte Graves et al 11260514 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SERRAO, RANODHI N
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Febo et al 10412846 - (D) PRATS 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Patel et al 11564563 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 Yee & Associates, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Cantor et al 11497766 - (D) STEPHENS 102(b) 112(1)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. WANG, JACK K
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bangel et al 11095998 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/102/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kohli et al 11425738 - (D) BUSCH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP PAPPAS, PETER
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Jung et al 11026663 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. NGUYEN, DUC M
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2831 Ex parte GIFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. 90011652 7,015,395 10/037,814 MARTIN 112(1)/103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP HOTALING, JOHN M original NGUYEN, CHAU N
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Appellant v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001122 6,426,916 09/796,206 EASTHOM 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN
Accord Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1085-86, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (defining Rambus’s claim term, “integrated circuit device,” as a “circuit constructed on a single monolithic substrate, commonly called a ‘chip’”) (relying on trade dictionaries, citations omitted).
Friday, December 7, 2012
yorkey, celeritas, crish, boyer, bush, kuhle, thompson
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M
Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference."
Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G
1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE
The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN
1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W
2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M
Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference."
Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G
1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE
The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN
1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W
2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).
Thursday, December 6, 2012
mayo, bilski, pitney bowes, boehringer, corkill, maziere, mentor, merck2, pharmastem, susi
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M
3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L
“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...
See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA
1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02
Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N
2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN
The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M
Appellant argues that
MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:
The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...
Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.
Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)
3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M
3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L
“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...
See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA
1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02
Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N
2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN
The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M
Appellant argues that
MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:
The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...
Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.
Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)
3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)