chitayat, nautilus, energizer holdings, porter2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Fanning 12790502 - (D) GARRIS 103 BGL/Detroit YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 11277200 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC JAMAL, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Laub 12139075 - (D) WORTH 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN

3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11261443 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A GHAND, JENNIFER LEIGH-STEWAR

3773 Ex Parte Feinberg 10674653 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1)/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

3774 Ex Parte Chuter et al 12338020 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H BGL/Cook - Chicago

The Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive. Patent drawings are not necessarily intended to show accurate relative dimensions and “arguments based on mere measurement of the drawings [are] of little value.” In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d 475, 478 (CCPA 1969).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 12064477 - (D) MacDONALD 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. HSU, ALPUS

2493 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11733354 - (D) McKEOWN 103 101 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LE, CHAU D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pass 11505658 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MOORE, KARLA A

1734 Ex Parte Ylimäinen 12301262 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

1744 Ex Parte LUBURIC 12793748 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP LEE, EDMUND H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Zemlok et al 12189834 - (D) WARNER 102(e) Covidien LP WEEKS, GLORIA R

3741 Ex Parte Norris et al 12131280 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M

Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

We further note that if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”); Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (BPAI 1992) (“controlled stream of fluid” provided reasonable antecedent basis for “the controlled fluid”). For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1−20 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) 608.01(n) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.05(f) , 2173.05(q)

3775 Ex Parte de Villiers et al 11829056 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Patent Owner/Appellant v. PERMOBIL, INC. Requester/Respondent Ex Parte 8181992 et al 95002355 - (D) MARTIN 103 Baker & Hostetler LLP Third Party: WILMERHALE / DC ENGLISH, PETER C original BROWN, DREW J

boon

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Fourcand 11735604 - (D) DILLON 103 102/103 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. HOANG, THAI D

An adequate traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Raymond et al 11531592 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

1792 Ex Parte Raymond et al 11531585 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Benco et al 11818070 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Volpe and Koenig, P.C. and Wi-LAN Inc. BEHNAMIAN, SHAHRIAR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1797 LEICA BIOSYSTEMS MELBOURNE PARTY LTD. Requester and Respondent v. DAKO DENMARK A/S Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,553,672 et al 11/803,545 95001671 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: LEICA BIOSYSTEMS RICHMOND, INC. DAWSON, GLENN K original GORDON, BRIAN R

applied materials, aller, cybersettle

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Fry 12554563 - (D) ROESEL 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Mckinney et al 11993301 - (D) Per Curiam 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BULLOCK, JOSHUA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Heitmeyer et al 11234422 - (D) HOELTER 112(2)/102 102/103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP MCCARRY JR, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Viola et al 12427796 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 102 Covidien LP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

3721 Ex Parte Beardsley et al 12427794 - (D) ASTORINO 103 103 Covidien LP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Ji 12562355 - (D) ROESEL 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (Servilla Whitney, LLC) TISCHLER, FRANCES

In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming obviousness rejection where “there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties”); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

1765 Ex Parte Schadt et al 11392714 - (D) OWENS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LISTVOYB, GREGORY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lehner et al 11172002 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS

2189 Ex Parte Park 12016702 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC RUIZ, ARACELIS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Guo et al 11744531 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HOPKINS, MATTHEW A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Boss et al 11170441 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

We also stated that this use of the broadest reasonable construction in construing conditional steps in a method claim was in accord with the view of our reviewing court in Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished), which though designated as unpublished, can be found on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit website.

alice, bancorp

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Kahl 10513652 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C

We find that claims 1–8, 11, and 13–25 are directed to a mathematical algorithm for calculating the modular inverse of a value, i.e., an abstract idea. 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). We recognize that independent claims 1, 14, and 18 conclude with an intended use clause “used for a cryptographic application” that applies the mathematical calculation steps to a specific application. A claim may be patent eligible if it includes additional inventive features such that the claim scope does not solely capture the abstract idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. ___, slip op. at 6. A claim reciting an abstract idea, however, does not become eligible “merely by adding the words ‘apply it.’” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

2442 Ex Parte Basham et al 12039496 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. AILES, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Bastani et al 12253133 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(b)/112(f) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUFFMAN, JULIAN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Wood 11609096 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 103 VERIZON ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Ebata et al 12314154 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP KRYLOVA, IRINA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Kleine et al 11493932 - (D) McKEOWN 103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

keller, datamize, musgrave, Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11173702 - (D) FRAHM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2182 Ex Parte Brenner et al 11751277 - (D) CHEN 103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hamalainen 10546641 - (D) MORGAN 103 FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) SU, SARAH

2443 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12342691 - (D) SHIANG 102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BELANI, KISHIN G

2492 Ex Parte Rasanen 11156479 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11096851 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Mohrmann, III 11465637 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP CHOUDHURY, ZAHID

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Reignoux et al 11629893 - (D) OWENS 103 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte PELTON 11860115 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich Manelli Selter PLLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Specifically, the scope of the claimed “prescribed presentation preference” is not defined and thus, appears to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Application of Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. 1352, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (1970) (noting ‘[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite’). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” (emphasis added)).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
...

“When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is “especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Pauly et al 11317464 - (D) FINK 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. SANDERS, STEPHEN

2457 Ex Parte Leermakers 10993391 - (D) SHAW 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SALL, EL HADJI MALICK

2463 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854417 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KHIRODHAR, MAHARISHI V

2491 Ex Parte SAWICKI et al 12143134 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Stevens Law Group BECHTEL, KEVIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Baardse et al 12052610 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 Siemens Corporation GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

2644 Ex Parte Naim et al 11274015 - (D) COURTENAY 103 SPRINT HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

Phillips, bristol-myers2, continental can, kansas jack, goodyear dental

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Gaither et al 11554672 - (D) SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Todd 11626730 - (D) WORTH 103 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP TRINH, MICHAEL MANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Kelly 10737087 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP LAVINDER, JACK W

Appellant disagrees and references Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for stating “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” App. Br. 21 (additional citations omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. “Accordingly, the Examiner's allegation that the meaning could change over time is irrelevant, as the meaning ‘at the time of invention’ determines plain meaning.” App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 3.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305873 - (D) SAADAT 103 William E. Curry PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Scrimsher et al 11497156 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PLECHA, THADDEUS J

2473 Ex Parte Meier et al 11600492 - (D) WINSOR 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. HUQ, OBAIDUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Rooyen 11010486 - (D) JEFFERY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHEN, JUNPENG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12182531 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BERHANU, SAMUEL

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8056975 et al 12/573,484 90009987 - (D) GREENHUT 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. Third Party Requester: Law Office of John W. Harbst ENGLISH, PETER C original NELSON JR, MILTON

“[U]nhelpful evidence [does not] diminish[] the strength of the more persuasive forms of evidence.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13-1306, 18 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014). The burden of showing commercial success attributable to the features of the claim does not impose a burden to demonstrate that no other conceivable factors contributed to that success. App. Br. 31-36; contra Ans. 8. “It is not necessary that [] the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed.Cir. 1991).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01

We are unaware of any requirement that the invention be the only successful product in its market niche or the most successful. App. Br. 38 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 602,679 (D. Del. 2013) aff’d at Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc ., supra (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014)(“ We agree with the factual findings on secondary considerations and find no clear error”). Evidence of growth in market share, like evidence of total market share, is relevant to the commercial success inquiry. See e.g., Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F. 2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A growing market share demonstrates that Appellant was “displac[ing] other devices which had previously been employed for analogous uses.” See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 US 486, 495-6 (1877).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent v. FRACTUS, S.A. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7528782 et al 11/780,932 95001455 - (D) MOORE 102(e)/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original PHAN, THO GIA

institut pasteur, verdegaal

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Rau 11226415 - (D) JENKS 103/obviousness-type double patenting HC Park & Associates, PLC AHMED, HASAN SYED

However, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence-based technical reasoning to support his position that the ordinary artisan armed with the knowledge of the optimal osmolality for a rehydration composition as provided by Greenleaf, could readily manipulate the composition disclosed by King to arrive at an effervescent composition with the claimed osmolality level. The mere “‘knowledge of the goal does not render its achievement obvious,’ and obviousness generally requires that a skilled artisan have reasonably expected success in achieving that goal.” Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Kimiya 11056441 - (D) BONILLA 102(e) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. VAUGHN, GREGORY J

“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 2 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . ..2131

2185 Ex Parte Hughes 12100013 - (D) MORGAN 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AYASH, MARWAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Atobe 10974599 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Korajda et al 12339268 - (D) KRATZ 102/103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Sundberg et al 11003639 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) BAKER, LORI LYNN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte CLARKE et al 11936816 - (D) JENKS 103 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TRAN, QUOC A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2496 Ex Parte van Bemmel et al 10970143 - (D) FISHMAN 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. POLTORAK, PIOTR

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Fahmy 10907423 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG NAHAR, QAMRUN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2742 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant Ex Parte 5815551 et al 08/473,320 90012036 - (D) CHEN 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER RALIS, STEPHEN J original BROWN, THOMAS

otsuka, takeda, altana

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Goldstein et al 11899758 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. C/O Gibbons P.C. RAO, DEEPAK R

The Federal Circuit provides a two-prong analysis to determine whether a new chemical compound is prima facie obvious over particular prior art. The fact finder first determines whether a chemist of ordinary skill would have selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead compounds, or starting points, for further development efforts. (Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Court defines a lead compound as “a compound in the prior art that would be most promising to modify in order to improve upon its ... activity and obtain a compound with better activity,” (Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007), or “a natural choice for further development efforts.” Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The second step involves determining “whether the prior art would have supplied one of ordinary skill in the art with a reason or motivation to modify a lead compound to make the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success.” Otsuka, 678 F.3d at 1292 (citing Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1357).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Muras 12105774 - (D) WORMEESTER 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Umekage et al 10572421 - (D) ADAMS 103 EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Kim et al 11198596 - (D) KRATZ 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN CHENG, DIANA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weikard et al 11217725 - (D) GRIMES 103 obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 12144120 - (D) HUME 112(2)/102(e) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ELLIOTT IV, BENJAMIN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte Wallash et al 11701091 - (D) DANG 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP WATKO, JULIE ANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Helvenstein 12077186 - (D) GARRIS 103 SOFER & HAROUN LLP. TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex parte AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY LIMITED Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,544,120 et al 09/862,182 90012063 - (D) BAHR 112(1)/102/103 112(2) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD ENGLISH, PETER C original LAYNO, BENJAMIN

perricone

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte LEE et al 12145080 - (D) GARRIS 103 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Haverinen et al 10659774 - (D) CALVE 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office DAILEY, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2693 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10686323 - (D) PINKERTON 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP MA, CALVIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Dunas et al 10510685 - (D) STRAUSS 102(e) 102(e) Wolff & Samson (ALU) HO, HUY C

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Harrison 11644862 - (D) RUGGIERO 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BELL, KALISH K

2478 Ex Parte Rivers et al 12052203 - (D) CHUNG 103 Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC RENNER, BRANDON M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Crockett et al 11960559 - (D) HORVATH 101/103 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP SPAR, ILANA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Alheidt et al 10530817 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Becton Dickinson and Company SCHELL, LAURA C

“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Coulthard et al 11056587 - (D) ADAMS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Song et al 11962928 - (D) McKEOWN 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. TRAN, PAUL P

merck2, susi

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Hong et al 11511423 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Wochner et al 12674299 - (D) ROESEL 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DUNLAP, CAITLIN NOELLE DENNI

The fact that Wochner also discloses many other possible combinations of acids does not support nonobviousness. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (that reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious,” especially where “the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a) , 2123 , 2144.05 , 2144.08

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123 , 2144.08

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Harris 12552238 - (D) GARRIS 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris, Inc RAMADAN, RAMY O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Kilborn et al 11386038 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC SORIANO, BOBBY GILES