sullivan, glaug

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Champ et al 12260399 - (D) KRATZ 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ZEMEL, IRINA SOPHIA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte BALACHANDRAN et al 11674842 - (D) BROWNE 103 Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. C/O Davidson Sheehan LLP BARON, JAMES T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11579222 - (D) HUME 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC MEROUAN, ABDERRAHIM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Geis et al 11731338 - (D) TORCZON 103 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP (MIT) RADKOWSKI, PETER

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Knapp 11356673 - (D) FETTING 103 Siemens Corporation RAJ, RAJIV J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Im et al 11245231 - (D) FRAHM 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. STERNBANE, LAURENCE J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11617902 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP SHAFER, RICKY D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Harkins et al 11149828 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 101/112(1)/102 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT) GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

3725 Ex Parte Ingvarsson 12221890 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting Mark P. Stone YUSUF, MOHAMMAD I

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
2915 PACIFIC COAST MARINE WINDSHIELDS LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MALIBU BOATS, LLC, AND TRESSMARK, INC., doing business as Liquid Sports Marine, Defendants-Appellees, AND MARINE HARDWARE, INC., MH WINDOWS, LLC, AND JOHN F. PUGH, Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1199 D555,070 29/258,753 DYK SJ non-infringement due to prosecution history estoppel Rohde & Van Kampen, PLLC; O’Melveny & Myers LLP CHIN, CYNTHIA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 IN RE RAYMOND GIANNELLI 2013-1167 10/378,261 5,997,447 08/941,455 LOURIE 103 Novak, Druce, Connolly, Bove & Quigg, LLP; Associate Solicitor USPTO DONNELLY, JEROME W; MULCAHY, JOHN M

The PTO bears the initial burden of showing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When a prima facie case of obviousness is made, the burden then shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence and/or argument supporting patentability. In re Glaug, 283 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The PTO did not carry its burden in this case.

sullivan DONNER 2: 25-45; 8: 948-63, 1195-1215, 1423-45
HARMON 4: 426, 443

glaug DONNER 8: 145-50, 1698-1705
HARMON 4: 36, 209, 369; 6: 146

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION AND WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND SLING MEDIA, INC. Defendant-Appellee, AND VIZIO, INC., Defendant. 2013-1165 7,080,362 09/938,886 7,225,436 09/687,777 DYK concurring LOURIE SJ non-infringement Pepper Hamilton LLP; Wiley Rein, LLP original HAHN AND MOODLEY LLP DAS, CHAMELI; NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC (formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.), Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND APPLE INC., Intervenor. 2012-1666 6,272,333 09/096,664 REYNA non infringement; domestic industry req. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Office of the General Counsel ITC; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP CHOW, CHARLES CHIANG

2785 IN RE ENHANCED SECURITY RESEARCH, LLC 2013-1114 90/010,849 6,119,236 09/210,057 DYK Dissenting O’MALLEY 103; publically available prior art Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.; Associate Solicitor USPTO ELISCA, PIERRE E

3306 ALLEGRA HEMPHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1503 4,557,720 06/619,684 PER CURIAM Rule 11 sanctions ALLEGRA HEMPHILL; Covington & Burling, LLP NOT, DEFINED FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)

MICKY A. GUTIER, Appellant, v. HUGO BOSS TRADE MARK MANAGEMENT GMBH & CO. KG, Appellee. 2013-1481 2,909,091 2,921,574 DYK cancelling the registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 MICKY A. GUTIER; DLA Piper, LLP

VACATED AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 PROVERIS SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (formerly known as Image Therm Engineering, Inc.), Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. INNOVASYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1166, -1190 6,785,400 09/640,246 PROST claim interpretation Proveris Scientific Corporation; Fox Rothschild, LLP original GREENBERG TRAURIG (NY) TABATABAI, ABOLFAZL

function media, typhoon touch, finisar, agilent

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Yuengling et al 11313898 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. TIV,BACKHEAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Afram et al 11862968 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 VERIZON MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Masters 10385587 - (D) NEW 112(2)/102 Siemens Corporation SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification discloses sufficient structure to fulfill the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph). “It is axiomatic that claims must ‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.’” Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph)). The sixth paragraph of section 112 allows “a claim [to] state the function of the element or step, and the ‘means’ covers the ‘structure, material, or acts' set forth in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The trade-off for allowing such claiming is that “the specification must contain sufficient descriptive text by which a person of skill in the field of the invention would ‘know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation.’” Id. at 1383–84 (quoting Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

...
The use of a computer is inherent in the disclosure, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that it is necessary to employ a computer to run the disclosed computer program—software is useless without hardware. See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Jrad et al 11838349 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Foad et al 11029646 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Applied Materials, Inc. PURINTON, BROOKE J

2883 Ex Parte Nash 12067288 - (D) PAK 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SOUTHCO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001911 6468012 09/911,940 SONG 103 102 PAUL & PAUL Third Party Requester:  KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original WILSON, NEILL R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 EVERBRIDGE INC., FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., AND TWITTER INC. Third Party Requesters, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents v. COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant 95001425 7409428 10/829,181 McKONE 102/103 KING & SPALDING, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: Haynes and Boone, LLP CRAVER, CHARLES R original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 12599896 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Ha et al 11307382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP ULLAH, ELIAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12070387 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Potekhin et al 10144561 - (D) KOHUT 112(1)/103 101 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. TANG, KAREN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Xu et al 11707812 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12217899 - (D) GARRIS 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11213577 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MACCORD MASON PLLC IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Finally, while claim 1 does recite “transaction data that represents a single client expenditure with a merchant in exchange for a plurality of products,” the manner or degree of representation is unspecified, and there is no recital of a sale, only an expenditure in exchange for products. Thus, this limitation is aspirational instead of functional or structural, and is perceptible only in the mind of the beholder.

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir.1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983)

[T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.”. . . . see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non-precedential). Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 2010). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the limitation).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
DONNER 6: 179; 8: 395, 1924

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Shiping 11862389 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP NERANGIS, VICKEY M

1784 Ex Parte Zhai et al 10912576 - (D) KALAN 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Klein et al 11781374 - (D) HUME 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 11469680 - (D) STRAUSS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kraufvelin 11436772 - (D) BUI 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. TORRES, MARCOS L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Requester, Respondent v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001654 6,890,324 09/894,042 MARTIN 305/102/103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KIDWELL, MICHELE M

de blauwe

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Baskerville et al 11839318 - (D) STRAUSS 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP HOSSEINI, REZA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Ippisch 11380712 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BECCIA,CHRISTOPHERJ

See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Arguments and conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight.)

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 716.01(c), 2145
DONNER 8: 1313, 1681, 1686

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte O'Hearn et al 11221138 - (D) SAADAT 102 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Lu 11561880 - (D) BUSCH 101/103 AOL Inc./Finnegan VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Blechman 10431845 - (D) FETTING 103 Eugene Lieberstein HEWITT II, CALVIN L

anhydrides

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Walker et al 11143878 - (D) FREDMAN 102 102 Siemens Corporation ZAHR, ASHRAF A

We not only find the Examiner’s interpretation consistent with the principles of “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification,” but agree with the Examiner that the preferred interpretation of a modifying phrase is that it modifies the immediately preceding phrase, rather than an earlier recited phrase. See Anhydrides & Chemicals, Inc. v. U.S., 130 F.3d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The rules of grammar apply in statutory construction: Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent, which consists of ‘the last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.’”)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2851 Ex Parte Padalia et al 11392215 - (D) GARRIS 102 LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILLIAN R. PETERSON DOAN, NGHIA M

2885 Ex Parte Lac et al 11574912 - (D) KALAN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TSIDULKO, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Angel et al 10207836 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP OYEBISI, OJO O

ksr

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Frazer 10475203 - (D) ADAMS 103 COOLEY LLP BOESEN, AGNIESZKA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Tang et al 11371508 - (D) McKELVEY 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Varanasi 11171599 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. AHMED, ENAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Helmer et al 12104614 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Nicol et al 11480296 - (D) ARPIN 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, “[w]hen there is a design need . . . to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (emphasis added).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04
DONNER 8: 31-87, 109-12, 397, 404-13, 477, 478, 512, 514, 536, 544, 545, 714-17, 720, 837, 846, 875-77, 888, 906-13, 921, 982, 1144-46, 1157, 1175-82, 1190, 1234, 1345-49, 1356, 1402, 1403, 1465, 1610, 1720, 1727, 1729-34, 1739, 1748-50, 1761, 1779-86, 1794, 1905, 1907

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P. Requester and Appellant v. FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001567 7376388 11/498,415 JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Foster Pepper PLLC Third Party Requester: Foley & Lardner LLP NASSER, ROBERT L original GESESSE, TILAHUN

orthokinetics, Morris, zletz

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Garibaldi et al 11801121 - (D) McCOLLUM 102 Bryan K. Wheelock ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Harris et al 11112938 - (D) HUGHES 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP RAHIM, MONJUR

2453 Ex Parte Rohani 11280764 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Yokomae et al 11896153 - (D) HANLON 102/103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

2883 Ex Parte Stewart et al 12253196 - (D) GARRIS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

2893 Ex Parte Utsugi et al 11362652 - (D) TIMM 103 ADAMS & WILKS ULLAH, ELIAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Joret et al 11421872 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PHAM, LINH K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Berger 11374917 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP PATEL, VINOD D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11109725 - (D) HOELTER 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Nolte 11713463 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KAMMER BROWNING PLLC OMAR, AHMED H

2893 Ex Parte Jang et al 11225089 - (D) PRAISS 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP REAMES, MATTHEW L

2895 Ex Parte Juengling 12033799 - (D) TIMM 112(2)/102/103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) JUNG, MICHAEL

Appellant argues that a relative term may be definite, citing to Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc. 806 F. 2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with Appellant that relative terms can be definite in some circumstances. However, each case must be evaluated on its own facts. Moreover, we note that the court in Orthokinetics was evaluating the definiteness of a patented claim being litigated in an infringement action. Patented claims are subject to the presumption of validity and definiteness is evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986)  2173.02,   2173.05(b)

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111, 2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  715,   2111,   2111.01,   2111.03,   2138,   2171,   2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04

griffin, hoffer, minton

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Yano et al 11067290 - (D) DIXON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takiguchi et al 11126127 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

2835 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11421825 - (D) MURPHY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAPE, ZACHARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11139591 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barsness et al 11833290 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION KIM, TAELOR

The determination of whether recitations or clauses introduced by terms such as “wherein,” “whereby,” or, in the present appeal, “thereby” result in affirmative claim limitations which are to be given patentable weight depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id.

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103, 2111.04
DONNER 10: 909, 916, 1018-24
HARMON 6: 25

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04
HARMON 6: 112; 19: 511

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)  2106,  2111.04,  2133.03(c)
HARMON 2: 215; 19: 373

rexnord, cvi

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Erlat et al 12642501 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 GE Licensing TALBOT, BRIAN K

1714 Ex Parte Kudela et al 12172029 - (D) BEST 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A

Claim 9 requires, among other things, a metal gas feed tube that has “a first end coupled with the gas source.” Because a claim term should be construed consistently wherever it appears in a patent or application’s claims, see, e.g., Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e are obliged to construe the term ‘elasticity’ consistently throughout the claims.”), we determine that the term “coupled” as used in the ’029 application’s claims means “joined” or “connected.”

The ’029 application’s independent claims use the phrase “directly coupled.” Based on our review of the ’029 application’s Specification, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the adverb “directly” as having been used in its normal sense of meaning “in immediate physical contact.” See Directly, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly (last visited Dec. 17, 2013).

Accordingly, we construe the phrase “directly coupled” as meaning “joined by immediate physical contact.”

Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 60 USPQ2d 1851 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2111.01
DONNER 1: 308; 2: 570, 571; 3: 470, 493; 10: 100
HARMON 6: 90

CVI HARMON 6: 123, 174, 199; 19: 358

1733 Ex Parte Cho et al 12051371 - (D) NAGUMO 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. YANG, JIE

1789 Ex Parte Conley et al 12074166 - (D) PAK 103/obviousness-type double patenting E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY MATZEK, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Benes 11952276 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global GRUBB, MATTHEW

2857 Ex Parte Henry et al 12044754 - (D) DELMENDO 103 INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. WEST, JEFFREY R

2884 Ex Parte Vaquero et al 12239331 - (D) GARRIS 103 EPSTEIN & GERKEN LEE, SHUN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Propst 12860391 - (D) HANLON 102/103 112(2)/102/103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP PENNY, TABATHA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte BUNGERT et al 11627056 - (D) NEW 102 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. KIM, TAE W

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Beatty et al 12210729 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON DUNLAP, CAITLIN NOELLE DENNI

1732 Ex Parte Bull et al 12612142 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BASF CORPORATION DAVIS, SHENG HAN

1756 Ex Parte Khang 12071453 - (D) OWENS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

1773 Ex Parte PIERIK et al 12625803 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1782 Ex Parte Denome et al 12270547 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Marndi et al 11491753 - (D) FISHMAN 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CORBO, GRISELLE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Strassner 12236609 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. RUBIN,BLAKE J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Ichiyama 11812833 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHEN, XIAOLIANG

2871 Ex Parte Sakuma 11979508 - (D) FRAHM 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) KIM, DENNIS Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Melling et al 10923606 - (D) LORIN 101/112(2)/103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General CAMPBELL, KELLIE L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Hurling 11633808 - (D) CAPP 101/103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP UTAMA, ROBERT J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2747 ACACIA PATENT ACQUISITION LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 90011295 6115698 08/516,646 HOFF 102 102/103 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. CARLSON, JEFFREY D original THOMAS, JOSEPH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 ACACIA PATENT ACQUISITION LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 90011296 6473744 09/369,517 HOFF 112(2)/102 "PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. CARLSON, JEFFREY D original COSIMANO, EDWARD R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 GOOGLE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001560 7426720 10/745,023 DILLON 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP STEELMAN, MARY J original WU, JUNCHUN

REHEARING

GRANTED
2711 Ex parte TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSING, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90009400 RE 35952 08/116,019 90/010,726 90/009,400 90/009,456 SIU 102 "NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP; WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON LLP POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

DISMISSED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 1636 INSTITUT PASTEUR & UNIVERSITE PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE, Appellant, v. MARGARET A. FOCARINO, Commissioner for Patents, Appellee, AND PRECISION BIOSCIENCES, INC., Appellee. 2012-1487 95/000,491 7,309,605 10/820,843 6,610,545 09/836,169 6,833,252 09/492,697 TARANTO 103 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Associate Solicitor USPTO KAUSHAL, SUMESH; PATTERSON, CHARLES L JR

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte AlexandrovichSerov et al 11491012 - (D) OWENS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP CULLEN, SEAN P

1774 Ex Parte Miller et al 11821485 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/102/103 Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber COOLEY, CHARLES E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Halstead et al 11268158 - (D) HUGHES 102 Muirhead and Saturnelli, LLC LOONAN, ERICT

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Rannow et al 11589615 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AL HASHIMI, SARAH

2875 Ex Parte Blake 11767562 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Vista IP Law Group LLP HAN, JASON
REVERSED 2892 Ex Parte Frerichs et al 10524672 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC GORDON, MATTHEW E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Leopolder et al 11570710 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP HIJAZ, OMARF

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Britigan et al 11004049 - (D) MITCHELL 112(2)/103 102/obviousness-type double patenting FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP TOWNSLEY, SARA ELIZABETH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11716002 - (D) WARREN 103 103 Akonia Holographics GOLUB-MILLER, MARCIA A

2844 Ex Parte Saccomanno 11350953 - (D) FRAHM 103 102/103 HONEYWELL/IFL VU, JIMMY T
AFFIRMED 2439 Ex Parte Bloemeke et al 11014312 - (D) SAADAT 101/102/103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC LE, CANH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hollman et al 11931415 - (D) COLAIANNI 102 Sun Chemical Corporation, c/o Frost Brown Todd LLC ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Friedman et al 11358331 - (D) SAADAT 112(2) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC RUIZ, ANGELICA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Brost et al 11627821 - (D) KOHUT 103 AT&T Legal Department - HFZ MARCELO, MELVIN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Desai et al 11387309 - (D) BUI 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) PEREZ, ANGELICA

2666 Ex Parte Johnson 11328033 - (D) SAADAT 102 JENNIFER L. BALES SETH, MANAV

2669 Ex Parte Lee 11253831 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. YEH, EUENG NAN

2695 Ex Parte Nakamura 11570721 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (Panasonic) SASINOWSKI, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Eble et al 11291245 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

2882 Ex Parte Troost et al 11580134 - (D) PRAISS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WHITESELL GORDON, STEVEN H

2884 Ex Parte Zelakiewicz et al 10955409 - (D) SMITH 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER TANINGCO, MARCUS H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Jung et al 11333850 - (D) REIMERS 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. KIM, KYUNG J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Brandt 11047097 - (D) BUNTING 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY GEHMAN, BRYON P

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC Respondent, Requestor v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC Appellant, Patent Owner 95001859 7290831 11/399,252 McCARTHY 102/103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ENGLISH, PETER C original PATEL, KIRAN B