king2, sernaker

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Chrin et al 11842919 - (D) GRIMES 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2129 Ex Parte Rothberg 11378575 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CRGO LAW CHANG, LI WU

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Svendsen et al 11539366 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Concert Technology Corporation NEALON, WILLIAM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Malkowski et al 10955116 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY THOMAS, LUCY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Califano 11765042 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Sun et al 11313102 - (D) HUME 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HUNG, YUBIN

When the patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) 1206 , 2112.02 , 2131.01
Sernaker, In re, 702 F.2d 989, 217 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2144

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte White 10688006 - (D) KIM 112(2)/102 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC LEVINE, ADAM L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Fathollahi et al 11397307 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. C/O CARDINAL LAW GROUP, LTD NGUYEN, BAO THUY L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Farmer et al 12499522 - (D) HANLON 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. RIVERA, JOSHEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Carney et al 11460566 - (D) JENKS 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Duncan et al 12070687 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 B. CRAIG KILLOUGH KWIECINSKI, RYAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Dierssen-Morice et al 12035118 - (D) CHERRY 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP HOEY, ALISSA L

Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Heinkel et al 11551429 - (D) SHIANG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

We note Appellants are not precluded from amending the claims to overcome the rejection. Relevant guidance is in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010) (“A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation ‘non-transitory’ to the claim.”); U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101 (August 2012 Update) (pp. 11-14), available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf (noting that while “non-transitory” is a viable option for overcoming the presumption that the media encompass signals or carrier waves, merely indicating that such media are “physical” or “tangible” will not overcome such presumption). See id. at 14.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Anbalagan et al 11558024 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. BEHESHTI SHIRAZI, SAYED ARESH

2462 Ex Parte Xu et al 12195114 - (D) McKEOWN 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) DUONG, CHRISTINE T

2495 Ex Parte Greenwald et al 11592726 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP LEWIS, LISA C

bigio, klein

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Brown et al 11454819 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Specifically, Appellants assert that Marshall is non-analogous art. App. Br. 12, 15-16. We agree. Generally, the claimed invention is directed to video camera surveillance programs, while Marshall is directed to incentive reward programs. Accordingly, Marshall and the claimed invention are not in the same field of endeavor, and, facially, Marshall and the claimed invention also do not appear to be directed to the same problem. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor). Although not set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants assert that the Examiner at one point indicated that the field of study was “‘capturing, detecting, and analyzing the information.’” App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants that this purported “‘field’” is unreasonably broad. Id.; c.f. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

2178 Ex Parte Giannetti 11412795 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TSUI, WILSON W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Kakehata et al 11826229 - (D) WILSON 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. LAURENZI, MARK A

3681 Ex Parte Lucash et al 11770579 - (D) FETTING 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Olah et al 12941773 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 103 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte O’FARRELL et al 11468619 - (D) WINSOR 101/112(2)/102/103 101/112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy DENG, ANNA CHEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Suvorov 11434854 - (D) TIMM 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC STARK, JARRETT J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bejerano et al 10879063 - (D) LEE 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC HUA, QUAN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Ogden et al 12276094 - (D) KATZ 102/103 Stoneman Law Patent Group BARRERA, RAMON M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Karpf 11074053 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7854627 et al 12/387,125 95001799 - (D) DILLON 112(2)/103 112(2)/102/103 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC Third Party Requester: BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. KIELIN, ERIK J original GILMAN, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex parte DEPUY MOTECH ACROMED, INC. and LIFENET HEALTH Appellants, Patent Owners Ex Parte 6511509 et al 09/073,877 90009348 - (D) SONG 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP For Third Party Requester: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto original LIFENET REIP, DAVID OWEN original HIRSCH, PAUL J

callicrate, KX

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte LEE et al 11423875 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L. SHIAU, SHEN C

The Examiner is correct in pointing out that the portion of the Specification at page 4 upon which Appellants rely in part for written descriptive support of the questioned claim language is headed by the title “Background.” However “a patent specification may sufficiently enable a feature under § 112, ¶ 1, even if only the background section provides the enabling disclosure.” Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also KX Indus. v. PUR Water Purification Prods, Inc., 18 Fed.Appx. 871, 877 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The fact that the inventor chose to express the minimum pressure level needed for activation in the Background section makes it no less important in determining what the inventor deemed necessary to the claimed process”.) Similarly, the “Background” section is part of the Specification and the Examiner has not explained why this portion may not be relied upon by Appellants to provide descriptive support for the claimed invention.

Callicrate vs. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 77 USPQ2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2164.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Ali et al 11799271 - (D) BEST 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11977616 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1)/102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP HIGGINS, GERARD T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Gunn-Beshears et al 11999542 - (D) CHEN 103 STOCKWELL & SMEDLEY, PSC MORRISON, JAY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Bleacher et al 11879985 - (D) KOHUT 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC MARANDI, JAMESR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Van Niekerk et al 11561597 - (D) STRAUSS 103 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. TAYLOR, BARRY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Wilkes et al 11799381 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 CEJN AB, Requester and Respondent, v. Westerndorf Manufacturing Co., Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7717471 et al 11/397,863 95001446 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(2)/102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ALBIHNS STOCKHOLM AB TIMOTHY PLATT IPQ IP SPECIALISTS AB KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original DUNWOODY, AARON M

INTER PARTIES REVIEW

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2153 DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, and NETAPP, INC v. ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE 6,978,346 B2 09/753,245 09753245 - (D) ANDERSON 103 For PETITIONERS: HAYES & BOONE For PATENT OWNER: RENAISSANCE IP LAW GROUP LLP RAKLAW LIM, KRISNA

suitco surface

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Barroso 11853753 - (D) BUI 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

The broadest-construction rubric does not give the Examiner an unfettered license to ignore or misinterpret claim terms and replace therefore with a different meaning. In re Suitco Surface Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111

2452 Ex Parte Li et al 11117403 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE PLC WIDHALM, ANGELA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Oettinger et al 11505958 - (D) HASTINGS 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED DOAK, JENNIFER L

2881 Ex Parte Bateman et al 12092601 - (D) WILSON 112(6)/103 Waters Technologies Corporation CHANG, HANWAY

2881 Ex Parte Makarov 12296746 - (D) GARRIS 103 THERMO FINNEGAN LLC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2449 Ex Parte Even et al 11612182 - (D) FETTING 103 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD, BRUCCULLERI L.L.P. WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Burazin et al 12606268 - (D) KIMLIN 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. SANDERS, JAMES M

1747 Ex Parte Wang et al 11356522 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUSS P.A. ROGERS, MARTIN K.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Degenaro et al 10665564 - (D) FETTING 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC SYED, FARHAN M

2184 Ex Parte Bragagnini et al 10535476 - (D) KUMAR 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. ROCHE, JOHN B

2188 Ex Parte Veazey 11554690 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KROFCHECK, MICHAEL C.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10640410 - (D) ELLURU 103 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Drude 11814277 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 NXP B.V. KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Ex parte Techtronic Floor Care Technology Ltd. Ex Parte 7,585,344 B2 et al 90012644 - (D) ADAMS 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (TTiFC) 3rd Party MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLING, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. TERRENCE TILL

rohm and haas

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Baker et al 12055477 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy YEN, SYLING

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte Houdek et al 11843399 - (D) DIXON 102/103 APPLE, INC. c/o PARK,VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP NGUYEN, KEVIN M.
REVERSED

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Mizutani et al 10521020 - (D) HILL 103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP ALI, MOHAMMAD M.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Marejka et al 11381917 - (D) FREDMAN 103 101 ORACLE c/o MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP STORK, KYLE R.

2162 Ex Parte Rosenberg et al 11882784 - (D) FETTING 102 102/103 Pearl, Cohen, Zedek, Latzer, Baratz LLP JAMI, HARES

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Tan et al 11345913 - (D) MacDONALD 103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. FAAL,BABOUCARR

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Bardsley et al 12116256 - (D) KUMAR 103 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO, LLP TOLENTINO,RODERICK

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Shen et al 11539377 - (D) THOMAS 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ABDI, AMARA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Kendall 11606724 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HYDER, G.M. ALI

2887 Ex Parte Eray et al 11994879 - (D) HASTINGS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Requester and Respondent 95000685 - (D) 8,086,604 11/000,413 JEFFERY 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO

NINTENDO CO. LTD. amd NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC. Requesters and Appellants v. MOTIVA, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7492268 et al 11/935,578 95001470 - (D) COCKS 102 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y

Nothing requires a finder of fact to credit inadequately explained testimony.  See Rohm and Hass Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

chicago bd.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Heubner et al 12224002 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1)/102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION PERRIN, JOSEPH L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Hind et al 11946330 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 IBM CORPORATION RSW IP Law DANG, THANH HA T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Camenisch 11541017 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Anne Vachon Dougherty ANDERSON, MICHAEL D

2469 Ex Parte Childress et al 11254750 - (D) BAHR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) IBM CORPORATION WILLIAMS, JENEE LAUREN

2471 Ex Parte Dolganow et al 12423600 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. CHOU, ALBERT T

2485 Ex Parte Aliaga et al 10449929 - (D) MORGAN 102 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2694 Ex Parte Damera-Venkata et al 10996083 - (D) LEE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MOON, SEOKYUN

The Specification plainly distinguishes between a "pixel offset" and "sub-pixel offset," and we see no reason to stray from the presumption that these different claim terms have different meanings.  See Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the prior art discloded a "pixel offset," as recited in each independent claim.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Abernethy et al 11774003 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Kim et al 11100635 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ORR, HENRY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Angwin 11777353 - (D) FETTING 103 103 IBM CORPORATION RSW IP Law GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2456 Ex Parte Desai et al 11180072 - (D) FETTING 103 103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW MAI, KEVIN S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Van De Kerkhof et al 11545763 - (D) NAGUMO 102 102 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Chalupper 11973553 - (D) HOELTER 102 102 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP YIP, JACK

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Gibbons et al 11726041 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LOVE, TREVOR M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Kilian et al 10731790 - (D) BUI 103 EMC Corporation c/o WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. PHAM, KHANH B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Lin 12113947 - (D) FETTING 102/103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP NGUYEN, THU V

2462 Ex Parte Rong et al 11389752 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2486 Ex Parte Morad et al 10776541 - (D) DANG 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Bishop 11392366 - (D) PARVIS 103 Krajec Patent Offices, LLC / Sandwave IP, LLC BATISTA, MARCOS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Cardwell 10977413 - (D) KIM 101 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA MACASIANO, MARILYN G

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Wang et al 11602857 - (R) TIMM 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. GREEN, TELLY D

thorner, CCS, helmsderfer, butamax

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Letz et al 11750567 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. PARKER, ALLEN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Maziers 11922126 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2)/102 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Generally, claim terms are:

Given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when
read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. There are only two exceptions to this general
rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. 

[Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)] (citation omitted). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 1365 (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 

Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 1701, 1706 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kwong 11549347 - (D) ADAMS 103 Pabst Patent Group LLP CHOI, FRANK I
AFFIRMED 1718 Ex Parte Boroson 11735544 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Global OLED Technology LLC TUROCY, DAVID P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Andrews 12573829 - (D) BUI 102/103 BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP BHATIA, AJAY M

2193 Ex Parte Bardsley 11474842 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P.A. VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Wan et al 10847834 - (D) BUI 112(2)/103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation PE, GEEPY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Xu et al 11956052 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH GALT, CASSI J

microsoft

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Oka 12153866 - (D) WILSON 103 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Jennings et al 12233078 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 102/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HENSON, DEVIN B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11697456 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP) KAHN, RACHEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Franke et al 11339867 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/112(2)/103/obviousness-type double patenting CRGO LAW RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

"Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment." Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007); therefore software per se, or a computer program per se, does not fall within a statutory class.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Whittaker 11311792 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1) 102 JOHNSON & JOHNSON SHARMA, YASHITA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3712 Ex parte AVIVA SPORTS, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner 90009984 6,558,264 10/012,760 SONG 103 JAMES W. MILLER, ATTORNEY Third Party Requester: Manley Toys Ltd. Reuben, Raucher & Blum Law Office of David L. Hoffman ENGLISH, PETER C original NGUYEN, KIEN T

pfizer

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Fernsler et al 11865153 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC MERANT, GUERRIER

Still further, dependent claim 26 does not further limit parent claim 17 because claim 26 fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 17.  A computer program product is completely outside the scope of multi-core processor. As such, claim 26 does not appear to meet the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph ("a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed"). See also Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Gardner 11240548 - (D) CALVE 103 ADDMG - BlackBerry HWANG, JOON H

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Kim 11840939 - (D) PER CURIAM concurring MacDONALD 251 Pearne & Gordon LLP LEE, TING ZHOU

2173 Ex Parte Kim 11859491 - (D) PER CURIAM concurring MacDONALD 251 Pearne & Gordon LLP LEE, TING ZHOU

NTP

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Litton et al 11834001 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte VADLAKONDA et al 11620943 - (D) GRIMES 103 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Patent Capital Group - Cisco SHAH, ANTIM G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Teo et al 11333399 - (D) HOUSEL 103 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PARENDO, KEVIN A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2896 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11362943 - (D) GARRIS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CLARK, SHEILA V

2872 Ex Parte Zahniser et al 12695103 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP FINEMAN, LEE A

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 90012250 6908316 10/685,836 WINSOR 103 JONES DAY THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original TA, THO DAC

[W]hen a patentee argues that its claims are entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application, the examiner must undertake a priority analysis to determine if the patentee meets the requirements of § 120. There is no statutory limitation during a reexamination proceeding prohibiting the examiner from conducting a priority analysis. Otherwise, the examiner would be stripped of a critical legal tool needed in performing a proper reexamination. Nothing in §§ 301 et seq. prohibits an examiner from determining whether or not a priority date was properly claimed during the original examination of the application.
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed Cir. 2011).

[T]here is no presumption that the examiner considered whether the written description of the Parent Application supports the claims . . . simply because the MPEP requires it. Whether the examiner actually considered this issue can only be determined by reviewing the prosecution history. . . . Deciding whether a patent application satisfies § 112 requires a distinct and separate analysis from deciding whether that application satisfies § 120. When an examiner decides whether an application satisfies § 112, the examiner reviews only the application. Deciding whether that same application is entitled to an earlier priority date requires the examiner to determine whether pending claims are supported by the written description of the parent application. 35 U.S.C. § 120.
Id. at 1278.

leapfrog

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Tabin 11774332 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2159 Ex Parte Ayachitula et al 11479532 - (D) ADAMS 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP SPIELER, WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Dyer et al 12572448 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Amer Sports Americas LONG,ROBERT FRANKLIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Eisenberger et al 12147119 - (D) CHERRY 103 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Ohsaka et al 11711107 - (D) KIMLIN 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC JOYNER, KEVIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Michael Walker et al 10355062 - (D) HUME 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MESFIN, YEMANE

Appellants have provided no evidence that combining the teachings of Chu Figure 2 (fully interconnected mesh network) with Chu Figure 4 (not fully interconnected mesh network) was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007), nor have Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more than expected results.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2114 , 2143.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2889 Ex Parte Wei et al 10905326 - (D) BEST 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA INC BREVAL, ELMITO

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Dawson et al 11144567 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 JONES & SMITH , LLP FIGUEROA, JOHN J

deere, ecolab, andrew corp.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Braveman et al 11591267 - (D) ADAMS 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZHENG, JACKY X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte RAMPF 12910463 - (D) BEST 112(2)/103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GME) LEE, JONG SUK

The use of terms such as "about," "substantially," and "approximately" does not automatically render a claim indefinite.  See, e.g., Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("This court has repeatedly confirmed that relative terms such as "substantially" do not render patent claims so unclear as to prevent a person of skill in the art from ascertaining the scope of the claim."); Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed.Cir.2001); Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs. Inc., 847 F.2d 819, 821 (Fed.Cir.1988)

Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 6 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Jackson 11668564 - (D) MORGAN 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC STARKS, WILBERT L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Itkowitz et al 11169271 - (D) COURTENAY 103 3D Systems, Inc. CERULLO, LILIANA P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte LUECKE et al 12341581 - (D) HASTINGS concurring NAGUMO 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC FINEMAN, LEE A

2836 Ex Parte Besser et al 11849242 - (D) KAISER 112(2) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN AMRANY, ADI