KSR, patel

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Hoffman 12258664 - (D) NAGUMO 103 U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY LEGASSE JR, FRANCIS M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Angell et al 12135960 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, TRAN N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Haverstock 12157761 - (D) BROWN 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP TRAN, THIEN S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boyden et al 11526192 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Barenholz et al 10314487 - (D) FREDMAN 103 PASTERNAK PATENT LAW WESTERBERG, NISSA M

This explicit analysis by the Examiner provides “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. This is also consistent with the recent non-precedential decision in In re Patel, 2014 WL 3454231 *4 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“a rejection based on ranges approaching each other might well be appropriate where there is a teaching in the prior art that the end points of the prior art range are approximate, or can be flexibly applied”).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)  2141 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11503501 - (D) GRIMES 103 obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11632312 - (D) WARREN 103 VENABLE LLP TUROCY, DAVID P

1787 Ex Parte Wu et al 12331591 - (D) SMITH 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. FUNG, CHING-YIU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte TSUDA et al 12419610 - (D) GARRIS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, CHAU N

2883 Ex Parte Digiovanni et al 12525138 - (D) KATZ 103 OFS Fltel, LLC (FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.) TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

kemco, harris2, medical instrumentation

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11516689 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

“Use of the term ‘means’ in a claim limitation creates a presumption that section 112, paragraph 6 has been invoked, but that presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, 208 F.3d at 1361. In this case, claims 1 and 49 use the term “means” and recite no structures to perform the claimed functions. We therefore conclude that the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. 

Section 112, paragraph 6 provides that a patentee [or applicant] may define the structure for performing a particular function generically through the use of a means expression, provided that it discloses specific structure(s) corresponding to that means in the patent specification. . . . As such, [the court has] referred to section 112, paragraph 6 as embodying a statutory quid pro quo. . . . If a patentee [or applicant] fails to satisfy the bargain because of a failure to disclose adequate structure, the claim will be rendered . . . indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2. 

Id. at 1360-61. The rules that “structure corresponding to the claimed function must be disclosed in the specification with clear linkage between the structure and the claimed function serve worthy goals. Such rules are intended to produce certainty in result.” Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp., 417 F.3d at 1253.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Hjelm 12118849 - (D) CALVE 103 Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC VU, VIET DUY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Kerofsky 11293066 - (D) CURCURI, 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP WANG, JIN CHENG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Bartolome 12039988 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES KURIEN, CHRISTEN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Kiefel et al 12066115 - (D) GOODSON 103 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. HIJAZ, OMAR F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Velusamy 11935261 - (D) KOHUT 103 VERIZON MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2186 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 11223559 - (D) NEW 103 Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC ALSIP, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Schofield et al 11469395 - (D) WEINSCHENK 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. MURRAY, DANIEL C

2487 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 10892897 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation CZEKAJ, DAVID J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Gill et al 11376491 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT) TRAN, HOANG Q

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte McGowan et al 11303990 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e)/103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Requester and Respondent v. X IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6653104 et al 09/986,119 95000062 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP Third-Party Requester: Woodcock Washburn LLP TURNER, SHARON L original PARK, HANKYEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3713 Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC Ex Parte 6,110,041 et al 08/775,388 90012333 - (D) KOHUT 102(e)/103 FAHMI, SELLERS, EMBERT & DAVITZ Ascenda Law Group, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Callie A. Pendergrass c/o Erise IP, P.A. SAGER, MARK ALAN original PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, edwards, lukach, ariad

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 11834817 - (D) MORGAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte VOLLM et al 11740573 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Chang et al 12072578 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/102 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. MAIER, LEIGH C

The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To that end, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations” (emphasis in original). Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not necessary for the specification to describe the claimed invention ipsissimis verbis; all that is required is that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978).

When an Applicant claims a class, the Applicant “must describe that class in order to meet the description requirement of the statute.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968 (CCPA 1971). “[W]hile the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure …, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1349. “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” Id.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991)  1504.20 ,   2152.02(b) ,   2161 ,   2161.01 ,   2163 ,  2163.02 ,  2164 ,  2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) , 2163 , 2163.02

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  608.01(p) ,   715.03 ,   2131.02 ,   2136.05 ,   2163.02 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.05

Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) 2138.05

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) 211.05 , 2152.02(b) , 2163 , 2163.05

Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201090 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Pomeranz 12175302 - (D) KAISER 103 BAE SYSTEMS CARTER, MICHAEL W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7274926 et al 10/089,623 95001210 - (D) CHEN 103/314(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Third Party Requester: PERKINS COIE LLP original Kenyon & Kenyon LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original CHAN, RICHARD

lantech, robertson

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11262499 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11286133 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Crisan et al 10407536 - (D) ADAMS 103 KONRAD RAYNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP ATTN: IBM54 CAO, DIEM K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Brown 11610156 - (D) BAHR 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. SHAW, PETER C

However, this menu of options does not satisfy the requirements in claims 1 and 13 for both a presentation of a query and a presentation of its predetermined responses. See, e.g., Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held not to meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio, Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2145

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 , 2114 , 2163 , 2163.07(a)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Frank et al 11395088 - (D) MOHANTY 103 AT&T Legal Department - H&C BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11327644 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e) 102(e)/103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ALLEN, NICHOLAS E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Holmquist et al 11302923 - (D) DELMENDO 102(e) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11171649 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11875775 - (D) WILSON 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Bukris 12359761 - (D) McMILLIN 112(2)/102 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. KIM, KENNETH S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte LaJoie et al 12432871 - (D) KINDER 102(e)/103 STRAUB & POKOTYLO PENG, HSIUNGFE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Son et al 10834806 - (D) SHIANG 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PHUONG, DAI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Maekawa 10653193 - (D) LORIN 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC PORTER, RACHEL L

3635 Ex Parte BURGER et al 11959542 - (D) ZECHER 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM WENDELL, MARK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Dilger et al 11250792 - (D) BAHR 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MULLER, BRYAN R

alice, warner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Sylvain 12047138 - (D) BUI 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 Avaya Inc. and Withrow & Terranova PENG, HUAWEN A

The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that fundamental concepts, by themselves, are ineligible abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___, No. 13-298, slip op. 1 at 10 (June 19, 2014).

2175 Ex Parte Chakra et al 11846586 - (D) HULSE 102(e)/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG HO, RUAY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Matsen et al 12435993 - (D) BROWNE 103 HONEYWELL/STW PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R

We have been instructed that “we may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) 2142

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Longe et al 11871651 - (D) DIXON 103 Glenn Patent Group - Nuance c/o Perkins Coie LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

2675 Ex Parte Abello 10513007 - (D) JENKS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WASHINGTON, JAMARES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Pocas et al 10584052 - (D) TIMM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. JONES, ERIC W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Maier-Hunke 12223037 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Mark P. Stone KIM, SHIN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Lujan et al 11115065 - (D) SMEGAL 102(e) DOCKET CLERK MORGAN, EILEEN P

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Charati et al 11612774 - (D) WARREN 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP STANLEY, JANE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Espino 12836794 - (D) SIU 103 VERIZON SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA

2159 Ex Parte Bhatia et al 11369792 - (D) FETTING 103 Baker Botts LLP CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Hayek et al 11354704 - (D) COURTENAY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. VO, NGUYEN THANH

2655 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11117608 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP PAUL, DISLER

2674 Ex Parte Fukushima 11656310 - (D) JENKS 102 EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP MUSHAMBO, MARTIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Nauta 12282240 - (D) NAGUMO 112(2)/103 102/103 NXP B.V. HILTUNEN, THOMAS J

2854 Ex Parte Mayer 11637593 - (D) KATZ 112(2)/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP SIMMONS, JENNIFER E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Doring 11582913 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/102(e)/103 ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES TRAN, DIEM T

3766 Ex Parte Bradley 12173169 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION PORTER, JR, GARY A

3753 Ex Parte LeBlanc et al 12000619 - (D) HILL 112(1)/112(2)/102 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP ROST, ANDREW J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION Requester v. eTOOL DEVELOPMENT, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7113919 et al 09/643,841 95000533 - (D) HOFF 102(e)/103 Riverside Law LLP Third Party Requester: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP BONSHOCK, DENNIS G original CARLSON, JEFFREY D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester, Respondent v. WORLWIDE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6554760 et al 09/983,463 95001988 - (D) SONG 103 112(1)/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Third Party Requester: BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original GILBERT, SAMUEL G

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Burgess et al 11272764 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEFF, STEVEN N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Szczesniak et al 11199938 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Pasqualino et al 12034327 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation MEHRA, INDERP

2691 Ex Parte Lagnado 11249594 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Sundstrom 11424019 - (D) KATZ 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P

2859 Ex Parte Ghabra et al 12415164 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION TORRESRUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Kogan et al 11320028 - (D) FETTING 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

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 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, 462 Fed. Appx. 947, 950–52 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential). Thus, non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. 

aevoe, motorola

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Kandogan et al 11928810 - (D) ASTORINO 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP PENG, HUAWEN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Jungermann et al 11470073 - (D) KRATZ 102(e)/103 Miles & Stockbridge, PC VO, TUYEN KIM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Brooks Rix 10861912 - (D) LORIN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Zhou et al 09953327 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(a)/103 THOMSON Licensing LLC HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2487 Ex Parte Morad et al 10887950 - (D) HOMERE 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation DIEP, NHON THANH

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte GROSS 11565352 - (D) KIM 103 Law Office of J. Nicholas Gross, Prof. Corp. CHEEMA, AZAM M

DENIED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09832440 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 Steve Morsa OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

DISMISSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 6,335,488 09/603,756 2013-1357 HUGHES dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Crowell & Moring LLP; Alan Anderson Law Firm LLC original AUZVILLE JACKSON, JR. ESTRADA, ANGEL R

The focus of the clarification-or-modification analysis is whether there were changes to the original injunction
that “actually altered the legal relationship between the parties.” Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., 727 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Motorola, Inc. v. Computer Displays, Int’l, Inc., 739 F.2d 1149, 1155 (7th Cir. 1984). Because clauses of both injunctions are almost identical in wording and are congruent in meaning, the legal relationship between the parties is not altered.

ricoh

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Do et al 12116352 - (D) COURTENAY 101/103 FOUNTAINHEAD LAW GROUP, PC QUADER, FAZLUL

A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted) 

2176 Ex Parte Dargahi et al 11705843 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 VMWARE, INC. BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Zacche et al 11756837 - (D) GARRIS 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD ANDREWS, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Hyde et al 11633145 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE RAO, SHEELA S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Nam et al 11849982 - (D) COURTENAY 102 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte MacDonald et al 12031438 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/112(2)/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2475 Ex Parte Szczesniak et al 11200204 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Hatchett et al 11352086 - (D) DILLON 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP MILLER, BRIAN E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Poovey 12588469 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 STEIN IP, LLC CHU, CHRIS H

geisler, gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Day et al 11605642 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 CORNING INCORPORATED KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

“A prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted if the applicant . . . can show ‘that the art in any material respect taught away’ from the claimed invention.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Furthermore,

[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts . . . .

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2144.05 , 2145
Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Hindle 12035868 - (D) FINK 103 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD PENG, HSIUNGFEI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Meade et al 12159589 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102/103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3788 Ex Parte Erickson et al 12492688 - (D) ABRAMS 103 112(1) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Alemany et al 11721827 - (D) PRAISS 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP CAMPBELL, NATASHA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Chou et al 10814081 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Maldjian Law Group LLC YEN, ERIC L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11725982 - (D) MILLS 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO BERTRAM, ERIC D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2758 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC Appellant Ex Parte 6088816 et al 08/942,071 90012315 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC Third Party Requester: BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. KE, PENG original NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 CERRO WIRE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,749,024 et al 11/675,441 95000594 - (D) CHEN 112(1)/112(2) 102 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP PATEL, HETULB original DUVERNE, JEAN F