kao, soni

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Dahms et al 11220820 - (D) KOHUT 103 Jones Day (BlackBerry) - 2N RAMPURIA, SATISH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Sano 10526587 - (D) MOHANTY 102 Greg Goshorn, P.C. BENOIT, ESTHER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Ogura 10537699 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC SOBUTKA, PHILIP

2668 Ex Parte Chang et al 10942183 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP TSAI, TSUNG YIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Szajewski et al 11964846 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MARTIN, LAURA E

“[W]hen secondary considerations are present, though they are not always dispositive, it is error not to consider them.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (explaining that all evidence of nonobviousness, including data in the specification, must be considered when assessing patentability).

In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, ___, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011) MPEP § 2111.05
HARMON 4: 21-23; MV4: 228; MV18: 131

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 707.07(f), 2145
DONNER 8: 1311, 1314, 1315, 1675, 1681, 1685, 1688, 1689, 1704

2854 Ex Parte Vest et al 12183461 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP FREEMAN, SHEMA TAIAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Beutler et al 12342734 - (D) SPAHN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. HOLMES, JUSTIN

3658 Ex Parte Plews 11514405 - (D) SPAHN 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) GrayRobinson, P.A. BOES, TERENCE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Faltys et al 11418847 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 (Advanced Bionics)Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Jacobs et al 12145166 - (D) KALAN 103 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Petersen 11754757 - (D) BAHR 102/103 102/103 Concert Technology Corporation NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Ashraf et al 11769063 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent IRACE, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Keigler et al 10971726 - (D) WILSON 112(1) 103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. LEADER, WILLIAM T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Kridner et al 11279691 - (D) LEE 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED VU, TUAN A

2196 Ex Parte Gschiermeister et al 10562380 - (D) SMITH 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN VERDI, KIMBLEANN C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Tsuria 10471380 - (D) SMITH 103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N

2434 Ex Parte Lin et al 11619672 - (D) DANIELS 102 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON TRAN, TONGOC

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte McKiou et al 11317144 - (D) DIXON 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP GONZALEZ, AMANCIO

2668 Ex Parte Coon et al 11669575 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP MANGIALASCHI, TRACY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Shaneour 11764995 - (D) HASTINGS 103 YOUNG BASILE CARIASO, ALAN B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Banavar et al 12114346 - (D) FETTING 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP KANG, IRENE S

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 BUTAMAX(TM) ADVANCED BIOFUELS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEVO, INC., Defendant- Appellee. 2013-1342 7,851,188 11/586,315 7,993,889 12/018,216 LINN granting of SJ for noninfringement under doctrine of equivalents and invalidity under 112(1)/denial of SJ for infringement  Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Cooley, LLP FRONDA, CHRISTIAN L

AFFIRMED
2736 PAUL MICHELOTTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5131 6023221 08/917,590 PER CURIAM lack of subject matter jurisdiction PAUL MICHELOTTI; US DOJ POPE, DARYL C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ÖSSUR HF AND ÖSSUR AMERICAS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1650 6,726,726 09/785,714 09/534,274 LOURIE denial of preliminary injunction Morrison & Foerster, LLP; Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP original HOLLAND & HART WILLSE, DAVID H

carella, dailey, KSR

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Wong 10786941 - (D) GLENN J. PERRY 102/103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE PHAM, MICHAEL

2184 Ex Parte Moertl et al 11550191 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. TSENG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Hudson et al 11982081 - (D) FETTING 102 SONYNJ Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Stanley et al 11698303 - (D) IPPOLITO 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte KHOURY 11425872 - (D) JENKS 103 Blue Filament Law STEWART, ALVIN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Pearson et al 11830541 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Saridakis 11158710 - (D) FETTING 103 103 Winstead PC HENRY, MARIEGEORGES A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Pop et al 11713144 - (D) JUNG 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC GREGORY, BERNARRE

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Bleck et al 10759315 - (D) ADAMS 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. POPA, ILEANA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Chen et al 11399924 - (D) DELMENDO 103 JAY BROWN LAW FIRM CHU,CHRIS H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Hyde et al 11605933 - (D) JUNG 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE GREGORY, BERNARRE

3685 Ex Parte Demartini et al 11528680 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2)/102 Reed Smith LLP KIM, STEVEN S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Hord et al 11982696 - (D) KERINS 103 William M. Hobby, III NEWHOUSE, NATHAN JEFFREY

In arguing that the citation of the references is improper, Appellants contend that citable “prior art must contain some teaching, suggestion or incentive to combine the individually known elements or features in such a manner as to result in the claimed invention.” App. Br. 9 (citing Carella v. Starlight Archery and Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also id. at 7. The Examiner responds that the rejection utilizes both the suggestion that the alternate mating structure of Christoff is a known arrangement and thus substitutable, and also points to case law standing for the proposition that a change in shape or form may well be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 13 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966)).

The decision of the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), (decided after Carella) recognized that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion and motivation . . . .” “What matters [in determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious] is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” Id. at 419. Thus, the question before us is not whether the cited art contains a teaching or suggestion to combine, but rather whether the Examiner provided a reason with a rationale underpinning for the proposed combination. Here, as discussed above, the Examiner did just that.

Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2128, 2132
HARMON 1: 185; 3: 11, 104, 172, 286, 288; 4: 332; 12: 282; 15: 53, 64, 101; 20: 45, 243
DONNER 5: 19; 7: 66, 152, 198, 218, 441, 731; 8: 197

Dailey, In re, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) 2144.04

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,  2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04
DONNER 8
HARMON 4

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 XILINX, INC. Requester and Respondent v. TAICHI HOLDINGS, LLC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001551 6,747,350 10/455,525 LEBOVITZ 103 112(1) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. KIELIN, ERIK J original CLARK, SHEILA V

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 NVIDIA CORPORATION Requester v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner 95001472 6,715,020 10/037,171 SIU Paul M. Anderson, PLLC Third Party Requester HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 THE TORO COMPANY Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. WRIGHT MANUFACTURING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95001741 6,438,931 09/714,824 SONG NIXON & VANDERHYE PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: James W. Miller JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

3671 THE TORO COMPANY Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. WRIGHT MANUFACTURING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95001742 6,935,093 10/186,680 SONG NIXON & VANDERHYE PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: James W. Miller JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Herger et al 12051162 - (D) LORIN 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP PASS, NATALIE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Beach et al 11514691 - (D) IPPOLITO 102/103 DAVID J. ARCHER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Hordos et al 11789756 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 L.C. Begin & Associates, PLLC FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Haustein et al 12059535 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) TSENG, CHENG YUAN

2188 Ex Parte Lin et al 11594068 - (D) BRANCH 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP KIM, HONG CHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Anzai et al 11079598 - (D) HOUSEL concurring HANLON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) WEISS, HOWARD

clay, antor media, datamize, seattle box

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Dao et al 11347404 - (D) BUI 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Erceg et al 12264472 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BAIG, ADNAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10926644 - (D) STRAUSS 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ZHOU, HONG

To be considered in an obviousness analysis the art must be analogous “prior art” which means the prior art must be in either the same field of Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably pertinent to Appellants’ problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. Id. at 658. The Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Parmater’s exercise device providing adjustable head resistance as being in the same field of endeavor as Appellants’ apparatus.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
DONNER 8: 262, 267, 275, 283
HARMON 4: 162; 20: 163

2659 Ex Parte Wu 11558145 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kouvetakis et al 11969689 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

The Examiner is correct that the prior art printed publications Roucka and Jorgenson are presumptively enabling. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, when an applicant challenges enablement of a reference, applicant's evidence and argument must be thoroughly reviewed to determine if the reference is enabling. Id., 689 F.3d at 1292.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Schwan 10518369 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PAINTER, BRANON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ingram et al 11860994 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EDWARD S. WRIGHT LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

The term “enhanced” is a word of degree, and “when a word of degree is used [a court] must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). ... Thus, an unrestrained, subjective construction of “strands having enhanced gripping properties” “would not notify the public of the
patentee’s right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)
DONNER 10: 290, 292, 566; 14: 31, 53, 54, 442
HARMON 5: 272, 274; 13: 235; 18: 289, 307, 314

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Schmidl et al 11360654 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Huck 11717701 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TSVEY, GENNADIY

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Wan et al 10906513 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC CHOI, YUK TING

2193 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11674893 - (D) KUMAR 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte CHOI et al 12133946 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LEWIS, JONATHAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Amizic et al 12427387 - (D) FISHMAN 102/obviousness-type double patenting Zenith Electronics LLC PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11731945 - (R) ADAMS 103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD FACC. SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 SOLVAY S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1660 6,730,817 09/051,746 DYK dissenting NEWMAN 102(g)(2) Williams & Connolly LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP original NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PRICE, ELVIS O

lintner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Fabre et al 12133115 - (D) KRATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP DEES, NIKKI H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte HUFFMAN et al 11780777 - (D) HULSE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 IBM_SVL c/o Sawyer Law Group, P.C. GOFMAN, ALEX N

cf. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (CCPA 1972) (citation omitted) (“Claims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter.”).

Lintner, In re, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) 2142, 2143.01, 2144, 2144.08, 2145
DONNER 8: 95

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Gleissner et al 11885906 - (D) KRATZ 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG FIGUEROA, FELIX O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Bash et al 11353557 - (D) CAPP 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KOSANOVIC, HELENA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11186394 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE LIN, JERRY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Chen 11742104 - (D) SMITH 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Doyle et al 10831056 - (D) ASTORINO 103 LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA L. DOUBET, P. L. BATURAY, ALICIA

2441 Ex Parte Yao 10593524 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. ZONG,RUOLEI

2447 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN et al 11967853 - (D) MORRISON 101/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy ISOM, JOHN W

2434 Ex Parte Garay et al 10976353 - (D) KUMAR 101/102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP TRAN, TONGOC

2483 Ex Parte Thangaraj et al 10816724 - (D) STRAUSS 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) HOLDER, ANNER N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Shuttleworth et al 11757798 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman LAO, LUNSEE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Kennedy et al 11428201 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 112(1)/112(2)/101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP DONLON, RYAN D

bell atlantic

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11322951 - (D) GRIMES 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

2168 Ex Parte Letkeman 11213148 - (D) GRIMES 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED

2197 Ex Parte Belisario et al 11284172 - (D) HOMERE 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PAN, HANG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bevan 11482481 - (D) HILL 103 CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC TRAN, NAM T

2453 Ex Parte Norden et al 11316150 - (D) BROWNE 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Steinmetz 11350014 - (D) SCHEINER 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP ZENATI, AMAL S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Heinz 11736028 - (D) BUI 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2434 Ex Parte He et al 10525138 - (D) MORGAN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANDERS, STEPHEN

2451 Ex Parte Aydar et al 11314167 - (D) CALVE 101/102/103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Specific Media/Myspace TIV, BACKHEAN

2462 Ex Parte Wang et al 10612401 - (D) FISHMAN 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP DUONG, CHRISTINE T

2493 Ex Parte Gearhart et al 11626513 - (D) HUME 101/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC SIMITOSKI, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Mun 10639288 - (D) FISHMAN 103 LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Epting et al 11531189 - (D) MOHANTY 112(2)/101/103 PHILIP H. BURRUS, IV PUTTAIAH, ASHA

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 TEMPO LIGHTING, INC., Appellant, v. TIVOLI, LLC, Appellee. 2013-1140 95/000,067 6,554,446 09/476,951 RADER claim construction/112 waiver/judicial estoppel/102 Lapple IP Law, P.C.; GRAY LAW FIRM DELGIZZI, RONALD ERNEST

In sum, the examiner erred by resorting to extrinsic evidence that was inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic evidence. Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[E]xtrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.”).

DONNER 3: 471
HARMON 6: 26, 34, 153; 8: 58; 19: 450

bigio, chaganti

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Tyler et al 12800422 - (D) GAUDETTE 102 Delphi Technologies, Inc. LE, THANH TAM T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Bacon et al 10629295 - (D) LORIN 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP JOSEPH, TONYA S

3641 Ex Parte Stewart 11354929 - (D) JUNG 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WEBER, JONATHAN C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Johnston et al 12286438 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA INC NEGRON, ISMAEL

Appellants contend that Vanbragt is nonanalogous art with respect to the claimed invention and Rice (App. Br. 4).

Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same 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 Chaganti, Fed. Appx., 2014 WL 274514 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)
bigio DONNER 8: 286-98
HARMON 4: 161, 164; 6: 25

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Chang 11078911 - (D) BROWN 103 DOCKET CLERK RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

2458 Ex Parte Newman et al 11784164 - (D) SMITH 103 CASCADIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DINH, KHANH Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Kaufman 11695578 - (D) CAPP 102/103 JOSEPH SWAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BAYS, MARIE D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 AUDITORY LICENSING COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant & Respondent v. OTICON A/S, WIDEX A/S & GN RESOUND A/S Third Party Requesters, Appellants & Respondents 95001104 7421086 11/331,842 TURNER 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP Third Party Requesters: BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original ENSEY, BRIAN

REISSUE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 GOOGLE, INC. Requester v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner 90011490 RE38104 09/261,970 DILLON 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KING & SPALDING KISS, ERIC B original HECKLER, THOMAS M

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 1628 PFIZER INC., WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY LLC, AND C.P. PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL C.V., Plaintiffs-Appellees, AND NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. AND TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellants, AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND LUPIN, LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND ACTAVIS, INC. AND ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, AND COBALT LABORATORIES, INC. AND COBALT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND SUN PHARMA GLOBAL, INC., WOCKHARDT LIMITED AND WOCKHARDT USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, AND ALPHAPHARM PTY. LTD. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellants. 2012-1576, -1601, -1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1607 6,197,819 08/420,905 RE 41,920 11/983,750 PROST infringed, enabled, sufficiently described and non-obvious White & Case LLP; Winston & Strawn, LLP; McGuireWoods LLP; original KOHN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC SHIPPEN, MICHAEL L; RICCI, CRAIG D

morsa, antor media

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte VERLOTSKI 12129872 - (D) BEST 102/103 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP KATZ, VERA

Although not expressly stated as such, Appellant’s argument amounts to an assertion that the composition described in Hajmrle and relied upon by the Examiner is not enabled. A printed publication cited by an examiner is presumed enabled unless barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant. In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 109 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Where, as here, an applicant has challenged the enablement of a cited reference, we must review all evidence and applicant argument to determine if the prior art reference is enabling. Id.; Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1292.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Buck et al 11999912 - (D) GRIMES 103 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP / ROCHE YOUNG, KEVIN L.

2177 Ex Parte Freiman 12429289 - (D) ADAMS 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP FABER, DAVID

2178 Ex Parte Hind et al 11350416 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STORK, KYLE R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lawrence et al 12140807 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 GE Licensing CHWASZ, JADER

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Martignoni 11789331 - (D) KIM 112(2)/102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Scott P. Zimmerman, PLLC - Others FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3624 Ex Parte Dan et al 12132790 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP KONERU, SUJAY

3626 Ex Parte Jung et al 11731778 - (D) FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE LUBIN, VALERIE

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte MORTON-FINGER 12104476 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2) KF ROSS PC JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Lee 11491681 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. YENKE, BRIAN P

2452 Ex Parte Krelle 12061222 - (D) CALVE 112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DOAN, DUYEN MY

2465 Ex Parte Bejerano et al 11057769 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Hussain 10931790 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BAKER, MATTHEW H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2896 Ex Parte Kisdarjono et al 12045286 - (D) PRAISS 103 SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI JOY, JEREMY J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION Respondent, Requester v. FELLOWES, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner 95001723 7,963,468 12/616,567 McCARTHY 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) Third Party Requester: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP DEMILLE, DANTON D original MILLER, BENA B

katz interactive, IPXL, rembrandt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Gutjahr et al 12018514 - (D) CURCURI concurring JEFFERY 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, KIM T

And to the extent that independent claim 10 improperly recites active method steps as part of an apparatus (i.e., "a first computer that provides ...." "a second computer  ... retrieves," " the second computer ... retrieves," "the second computer generates ...") to render the claim indefinite under 112(b) is likewise a question that the Examiner should consider following this opinion.  See In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Pat. Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)  (citing IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.con, Inc. 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir 2011) (data transmitting device held indefinite for reciting transmitting method step). 

katz HARMON 5: 6, 7; MV5: 319; 6: 1-3, 13, 14; MV6: 191, 432
rembrandt MV5: 319; 6: 16; 9: 11, 22

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Setnes et al 12135946 - (D) SPAHN 112(2)/102/103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Boss et al 11549728 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 102/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW HOLMES, ANGELA R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Van Kampen et al 12020811 - (D) KOKOSKI 102/103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. SANEI, MONA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11270795 - (D) KUMAR 103 Baker Botts LLP MITIKU, BERHANU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Hudgens 12283113 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Ovonyx, Inc QUINTO, KEVIN V

2862 Ex Parte Popp 12152409 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 SMP Logic Systems NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Mourra 10906592 - (D) SMITH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP VU, TUAN A

inventio, trimed, personalized, CCS

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Sitzmann et al 11694000 - (D) HUME 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SPITTLE, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Frisa et al 11576487 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 2612 ENOCEAN GMBH, Appellant, v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. 2012-1645 10/304,121 7,084,529 10/188,633 PCT/GB01/00901 PCT/DE01/01965 PROST claims invoke 112(6)/no priority Foley & Lardner LLP; Byers Law Group BROWN, VERNAL U; EDWARDS JR, TIMOTHY

It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. Id. (citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). However, this presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The correct inquiry is “whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.” Inventio, 649 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, “[u]ltimately, whether claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 depends on how those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.” Id. at 1360.

Personalized Media Communications LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 48 USPQ2d 1880 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2181
personalized HARMON 5: 234, 235; 6: 267, 357; 19: 423; 20: 181
DONNER 10: 757; 11: 16, 141, 142, 184, 200
CCS HARMON 6: 24, 35, 17, 225; 19: 416
DONNER 3: 465; 10: 1040, 1044-46; 11: 180-84

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Zatloukal et al 10531162 - (D) FETTING 102 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. ALI, FARHAD

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Oksman 11500108 - (D) NAPPI 102 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC LAM, KENNETH T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Grieselhuber et al 11689414 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 COOLEY LLP CORBO, GRISELLE

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Spencer 10835719 - (D) Per Curiam 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAN, DEAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Oliver et al 11927458 - (D) HUGHES 102 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP COULTER, KENNETH R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Kresse et al 11519685 - (D) DANG 103 ABB Inc. MALEK, LEILA

2646 Ex Parte Bu et al 11635678 - (D) SHIANG 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC WANG-HURST, KATHY W

2673 Ex Parte Cassidy et al 10378989 - (D) SCHEINER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, THIERRY L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Menninger 10959306 - (D) FETTING 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP REFAI, RAMSEY