deminski, wood, oetiker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Zwieback et al 12067258 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Waldo et al 11385164 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK KRAFT, SHIH-WEI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Strub et al 11519195 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP HOFFMAN, MARY C

3752 Ex Parte Stuhlbacher et al 11569669 - (D) GOODSON 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Keller et al 12006820 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Lee Pederson KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1619 Ex Parte Brzeczko et al 12019666 - (D) FREDMAN 102 Ashland Inc. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ. WHEELER, THURMAN MICHAEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Beadle et al 10582929 - (D) WILSON 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY BULLOCK, IN SUK C

As to whether references are properly used to reject the claims of a pending patent application, the Federal Circuit has stated:

In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed.Cir.1986). . . . We have reminded ourselves and the PTO that it is necessary to consider “the reality of the circumstances”, In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979)—in other words, common sense—in deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor. 

In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis added).

Deminski, In re, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2141.01(a)
Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 707.07(f) ,   716.01(d) ,   1504.01(a) ,   2107.02 ,   2142 ,   2145 ,   2164.07

1788 Ex Parte KISHIOKA 12711538 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 SUGHRUE-265550 DUCHENEAUX, FRANK D

freeman, medtronic

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Chatterjee 11466239 - (D) HUDALLA 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SANDIFER, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Testrake et al 11486763 - (D) MOHANTY 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3741 Ex Parte Chen et al 11741385 - (D) MOHANTY 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) BOSWELL, BETH V

3742 Ex Parte Kusaka et al 12161746 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 RATNERPRESTIA DANG, KET D
REVERSED 2193 Ex Parte Chatterjee 11466239 - (D) HUDALLA 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SANDIFER, MATTHEW D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Love et al 11194224 - (D) DIXON 103 103 GOOGLE C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP ADDY, ANTHONY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Moore 12577389 - (D) WILSON 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HENSON, MISCHITA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Anderson 11588679 - (D) KINDER 103 103 Michael A. Mochinski LIM, SENG HENG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte MENDOZA et al 12647971 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. TONGUE, LAKIA J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Wohlfromm et al 12373439 - (D) WILSON 103/ obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Kandasamy et al 12031778 - (D) KINDER 101 102 IBM Corp. (AUS/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. OTTO, ALAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte TOCK et al 12572656 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP HIGA, BRENDAN Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Wassingbo et al 12106418 - (D) FRAHM 103 WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP ZHOU, HONG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Nohilly 11502339 - (D) WIEKER 103 BODNER & O''ROURKE, LLP FISHBACK, ASHLEY LAUREN

3741 Ex Parte Venkataraman et al 12219534 - (D) HILL 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. GOYAL, ARUN

3744 Ex Parte Li et al 10875173 - (D) BARRETT 102 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3781 Ex Parte Maia 12457795 - (D) BAYAT 103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS INC., Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7954538 et al 12/931,644 95001829 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: UNGERMAN IP, PLLC JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original YOON, KEVIN E

1735 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS INC., Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7,882,886 et al 12/080,482 95001830 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: UNGERMAN IP, PLLC JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original YOON, KEVIN E

The test for when a claim is broader in scope than the original claims is “if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this regard, a “claim that is broader in any respect is considered to be broader than the original claims even though it may be narrower in other respects.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 706.03(w) , 2250 , 2666.01

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 SAP AMERICA, INC. Requester v. WELLOGIX TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC Patent Owner Ex Parte 7669133 et al 10/125,120 95001397 - (D) SIU 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original RIES, LAURIE ANNE

OSRAM

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Cheruvathery 11613535 - (D) KAISER 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP GHOWRWAL, OMAR J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3696 Ex Parte Blythe 11964859 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP CHANG, EDWARD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Li et al 11777340 - (D) ENGELS 112(2) 112(2)/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP VO, TED T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Vasa 11850057 - (D) BUI 102 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte DOWD et al 12730841 - (D) WILSON 103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. / Weatherford PEACE, RHONDA S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Hartsuiker et al 12147998 - (D) McSHANE 103 112(1) Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP KRINKER, YANA B

1758 Ex Parte Rose et al 11998507 - (D) BEST 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP SunPower/ BSTZ DAM, DUSTIN Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Hsu et al 11684830 - (D) HOUSEL 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP FOX, BRANDON C

2826 Ex Parte KOPTA 12417774 - (D) TIMM 102 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC DICKEY, THOMAS L

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Van Wees et al 12495543 - (R) ANKENBRAND 103 HONEYWELL/UOP SEIFU, LESSANEWORK T

Further, as the Federal Circuit has explpained, "how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relative size of a genus or species in a particular technology is of critical importance." OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Osram Syvania Inc., v. America Induction Tech., 701 F.3d 698, 705 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2131.02

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 AKER BIOMARINE AS Requester and Respondent v. NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES & BIORESSOURCES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8057825 et al 11/640,235 95001819 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 COOLEY LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original FOX, ALLISON M

1657 Ex parte MICROPARTICLES PROTEOMICS, LLC APPELLANT Ex Parte 7462489 et al 11/935,048 90011666 - (D) POLLOCK 103 VANCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PC CAMPELL, BRUCE R original LILLING, HERBERT J

alice, mayo, mullin, herbert

custom search

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Ting et al 11294354 - (D) POTHIER Concurring Baumeister 101/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Nguyen 11985484 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 101/102 Martin Khang Nguyen CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).

In judging whether claim 12 falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then consider the elements of the claim — both individually and as an ordered combination — to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept” — an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id.

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

3685 Ex Parte CHATTE 11866007 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(2)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Avery Dennison Corporation Requester v. Continental Datalabel, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Flynn et al 6,860,050 10/390,339 95001608 - (D) GUEST 112(1)/103 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: AVERY DENNISION CORPORTION NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning as to why the label assembly with the matrix strip intact would not meet the requirements of the claim. In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335 (CCPA 1973) (finding that a reference that describes a composition or structure as being an intermediate can be regarded as prior art) (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390 (CCPA 1972)).

cortright

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Kinoshita 11547973 - (D) EVANS 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Solomon et al 12648325 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 FLSMIDTH FRANCIS, FAYE

3752 Ex Parte Babaev 11610402 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Bacoustics, LLC BOECKMANN, JASON J

3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11329440 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

While the Examiner is encouraged to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation, we find the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonable in this instance. That is, there is no reason to interpret part of the diameter of Burt’s syringe between the “parallel spaced apart flange rings 38 and 39 for use as stabilizers” (FF 2) as a “locating portion” simply in order to permit the larger end of Burt’s syringe to become the “flange.” See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”)

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 11796165 - (D) STRAUSS 102 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BROWN, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Lau et al 12343149 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP WOODARD, JOYE L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Torchalski et al 11850489 - (D) BUI 102/103 Zebra/Alston & Bird YANG, JAMES J

continental can, oelrich

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Solomon et al 12648325 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 FLSMIDTH FRANCIS, FAYE

3752 Ex Parte Babaev 11610402 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Bacoustics, LLC BOECKMANN, JASON J

In order to establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)) (emphasis added).

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

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) 2112

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Lau et al 12343149 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP WOODARD, JOYE L

Net MoneyIN, Arkley

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Dennison 12199306 - (D) HOELTER 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP HAYES, BRET C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Hu et al 11527881 - (D) WIEKER 102 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. SHAY, DAVID M

“Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
...
In an anticipation rejection, “the reference must ‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”’ Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)). While “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88. Here, although Panescu discloses an expandable member, a mesh, and a plurality of thermocouples, Panescu does not disclose these elements “as arranged in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 88 USPQ2d 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2152.02(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Vasko et al 12191741 - (D) FINK 103 103 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION / T&W GIRMA, ANTENEH B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Parker et al 11905247 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 MARKS & CLERK HANCE, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Conus et al 10544644 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 GRIFFIN & SZIPL, PC NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 CME GROUP, INC. Requester v. REALTIME DATA LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7714747 et al 11/651,365 95001517 - (D) SIU 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Baker Botts, LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original NGUYEN, LINH V

self

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Sagar 11694068 - (D) GRIMES 103 Qualcomm /Fulbright & Jaworski LLP SONG, DAEHO D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte ROAJANASIRI et al 12265313 - (D) HOUSEL 103 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION RIVERA, JOSHEL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte LUBBERS et al 11771685 - (D) BEAMER 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate - MKM) PARIKH, KALPIT

2174 Ex Parte Baum et al 11706039 - (D) LaVIER 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Johnson 11521236 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Dierker & Associates, P.C. VILLENA, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Safwat 12589904 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Donald E. Schreiber TSANG, LISA L

Moreover, claim 1 does not positively require the presence of whitetail deer, only the selection of an area of soil in a locale accessible to whitetail deer. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Appellant has not demonstrated that the “area of soil” discussed in Flora Locale is not “accessible to whitetail deer.”

Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982) 2131.05

NTP, hansgirg, oelrich

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Odnoblyudov et al 11792687 - (D) SMITH 103 FAY SHARPE LLP SAHA, BIJAY S

1747 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10562947 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Our reviewing court has explained repeatedly that "[i]t is axiomatic that for anticipation, each and every claim limitation must be explicitly or inherently disclosed in the prior art." In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1302 (Fed, Cir. 2011).  The standard for inherency is also long-standing: "[i]n Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 26 CCPA 937, 940, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (1939), the court said: "Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.  The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.'" In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) 2112

1767 Ex Parte Stark et al 12507042 - (D) WARREN 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC HEINCER, LIAM J

1771 Ex Parte Hamper et al 12968989 - (D) TIMM 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC SINGH, PREM C

1778 Ex Parte Smith et al 12897457 - (D) WARREN 103 YOUNG BASILE CECIL, TERRY K

1786 Ex Parte Tung et al 11105666 - (D) SMITH 103 Duane Morris LLP (UDC) CROUSE, BRETT ALAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Nordin et al 12505280 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 PANDUIT CORP. IMAS, VLADIMIR

2837 Ex Parte Foschini et al 11573943 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS SALATA, ANTHONY J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Sheehan et al 12475837 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 103 NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY KURPLE, KARL

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Shindo 10595660 - (D) SMITH 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte HAYES 12566343 - (D) TROCK 103 Perkins IP Law Group LLC WU, YICUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2812 Ex Parte Millward et al 12954344 - (D) TIMM 102/103 Wells St. John P.S. GHYKA, ALEXANDER G

2833 Ex Parte Kuczynski et al 13028504 - (D) WARREN 103 IBM CORPORATION HAMMOND, BRIGGITTE R

2834 Ex Parte Liu 12334579 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/102/103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS ANDREWS, MICHAEL

2874 Ex Parte Nagafuji et al 12881769 - (D) WARREN 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP PETKOVSEK, DANIEL

2876 Ex Parte Chakrabarti 11868838 - (D) KRATZ 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA ELLIS, SUEZU Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Tobin et al 11864216 - (D) BROWNE 103 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

bayer3, wellman, engel

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Merino et al 12956237 - (D) PAK 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP SORKIN, DAVID L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kline et al 11406291 - (D) EVANS 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP VO, TRUONG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Barish 12292211 - (D) CAPP 103 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Romeo et al 10138851 - (D) WARREN 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP SMITH, CHAIM A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte GSCHWIND 11762156 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(1) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. CALDWELL, ANDREW T

If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010.

Whether the best mode requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Bayer AG v. Schein Pharms., Inc., 301 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Two specific factual questions must be answered to determine whether there has been a violation of the best mode requirement: The first is whether, at the time of filing the patent application, the inventor had a best mode of practicing the claimed invention—a subjective question. The second is whether, assuming the inventor had a preference for one mode over all others, the inventor objectively concealed his preferred mode from the public. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

See also Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“invalidity for failure to set forth the best mode requires that (1) the inventors knew of a better mode of carrying out the claimed invention than they disclosed in the specification, and (2) the inventors concealed that better mode.”) .

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Lee et al 12725508 - (D) PAK 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC OSENBAUGH-STEWART, ELIZA W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 12386573 - (D) MURPHY 103 KLAUS J. BACH BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Justin 12784824 - (D) ASTORINO 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. CHOI, STEPHEN

takeda2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Kogan et al 11865099 - (D) DILLON 102 BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC c/o LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE NGUYEN, KIM T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte KIM 12197829 - (D) KERINS 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. KRYCINSKI, STANTON L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Stock et al 11531299 - (D) BROWN 103 Ingersoll-Rand Company Krieg DeVault LLP COX, ALEXIS K

3745 Ex Parte TODD 12862417 - (D) BROWN 103 PITTS & LAKE P C YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Robinson et al 12492477 - (D) DERRICK 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1789 Ex Parte Stralin et al 11643902 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2) 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP JOHNSON, JENNA LEIGH

We refer to a case on point, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 743 F.3d 1359, 1366-1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014), wherein the Court determined that because there was no evidence that the differences between techniques used in measuring were in fact significant, and because there is evidence of a correlation for the results between techniques used, that the claims were not indefinite.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Jung et al 12005114 - (D) KIM 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC MYHRE, JAMES W

researchcorp, grams

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12205330 - (D) McSHANE 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Knowles et al 10930739 - (D) McMILLIN 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (OR RIM) HOANG, HIEU T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Schulte et al 12069024 - (D) KRIVAK 102 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. JOSEPH, JAISON

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Yakovleva et al 13151371 - (D) KRATZ 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FERRE, ALEXANDRE F

1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11710830 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte You et al 11966722 - (D) SMITH 103 Chevron Corporation WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A

2176 Ex Parte Rees et al 11927036 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MARRERO, ZAIDA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kriegmair 12040384 - (D) WEINBERG 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD LOPEZ ALVEREZ, OLVIN

2421 Ex Parte Hawkins et al 12321791 - (D) EVANS 103 Allen D. Brufsky, PA NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2444 Ex Parte CRIPE et al 12687642 - (D) CHUNG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAPPAS, PETER

2449 Ex Parte Anschutz 11437016 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ABEDIN, NORMIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte MOODY 11958156 - (D) HORNER 101 JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL DEODHAR, OMKAR A

Appellant challenges the Examiner’s determination that “a set of rules qualifies as an abstract idea.” Br. 6 (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). See also id. at 8 (arguing that “the Examiner has not identified clearly what the ‘abstract idea’ is” and that “[g]ame rules are submitted to be concrete, rather than abstract, because game rules set out how the game is to be played by all of the players.”).
...
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s admission that the method of claim 1 sets out physical steps and the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is claiming an abstract idea are contradictory. Br. 4. See also id. at 8 (arguing that because claim 1 contains physical steps, this should end the inquiry into whether claim 1 claims an abstract idea). We find no contradiction in the determination that a method claim which includes physical steps is wholly directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The presence of a physical step in the claim to derive data for the algorithm will not render the claim statutory.”). Further, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed physical method steps are not tied to a particular machine and do not transform the cards into a different state or thing.