bruckelmeyer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Lee et al 10928815 - (D) FREDMAN 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON MARVICH, MARIA

In determining obviousness, the issue of whether a given reference is available as a prior art “printed publication” depends on whether it was “publicly accessible” during the prior period. Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2127 , 2152.02(e)

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Haner et al 11080853 - (D) WIEDER 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LI, GUANG W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2662 Ex Parte Chu 11771045 - (D) DANG 103 VERIZON OSINSKI, MICHAEL S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Hering et al 12999679 - (D) NAGUMO 102 102/103 NSIP LAW SMITH, PRESTON

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Mahdavi 11780165 - (D) DANG 102 102 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Gell et al 12472914 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1734 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 12874441 - (D) DERRICK 112(1) CANTOR COLBURN LLP KOSLOW, CAROL M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Rasmussen et al 12336929 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

2184 Ex Parte Bockhaus 11048830 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PARK, ILWOO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte WANG et al 11537025 - (D) WINSOR 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OKEKE, IZUNNA

2433 Ex Parte Chan et al 11580459 - (D) DANG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AMBAYE, SAMUEL

2466 Ex Parte Poustchi et al 10952905 - (D) DANG 103 Avaya by MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C. CRUTCHFIELD, CHRISTOPHER M

2469 Ex Parte Raju et al 12127628 - (D) KHAN 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. LE, BRIAN T

2496 Ex Parte Reumann et al 12123084 - (D) DANG 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP FIELDS, COURTNEY D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte King et al 12542204 - (D) HORNER 102/103 KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. - Mattel HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

3742 Ex Parte Kang et al 11358314 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

3744 Ex Parte Major et al 11855178 - (D) HORNER 112(1) 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM RUBY, TRAVIS C

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Tabuchi et al 11046273 - (D) COLAIANNI 102 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

johnson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Brod 11570221 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) Parker Highlander PLLC EWOLDT, GERALD R

“If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.” MPEP § 2173.05(i) (citing In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019 (CCPA 1977)).
...
We agree with Appellant that the facts of this case are similar to those of In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008 (CCPA 1977). In that case, the applicant excluded two species from the scope of its claims after losing an interference. Id. at 1013. The claims were denied an earlier filing date on the basis that the amended claims lacked adequate support in the applicant’s specification. Id. at 1014.

The court held, however, that “appellants are merely excising the invention of another, to which they are not entitled, and are not creating an ‘artificial subgenus’ or claiming ‘new matter.’” Id. at 1019. Similarly here, Appellants have merely excised from their claims three species that are admitted in the Specification to be known in the prior art. As stated by the Johnson court,

The notion that one who fully discloses, and teaches those skilled in the art how to make and use, a genus and numerous species therewithin, has somehow failed to disclose, and teach those skilled in the art how to make and use, that genus minus two of those species, and has thus failed to satisfy the requirements of § 112, first paragraph, appears to result from a hypertechnical application of legalistic prose relating to that provision of the statute. All that has happened here is that appellants narrowed their claims to avoid having them read on [the prior art].

Id.

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) 2164.08 , 2173.05(i)

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Pancheva et al 13057725 - (D) ROESEL 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Marieta Pancheva HARDEE, JOHN R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Jones et al 11971666 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 WILSON HAM & HOLMAN/RSW HOPE, DARRIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Eberstaller 11718676 - (D) KINDER 103 STEIN IP, LLC BROWN, ANTHONY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11246220 - (D) FETTING 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3676 Ex Parte Ciglenec et al 12500725 - (D) HORNER 103 Schlumberger Technology Corporation, HPS WALLACE, KIPP CHARLES

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Allen 12889622 - (D) GREENHUT 102 Cooke Law Firm FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

3754 Ex Parte Siena et al 11602548 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 ALIX YALE & RISTAS LLP NGUYEN, TUAN N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Sawyer et al 12100542 - (D) PINKERTON 102/103 102/103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) SCHMIDT, KARI L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kitazawa et al 11791540 - (D) JESCHKE 103 112(1) Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP MULUNEH, DAWIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Corenthin et al 11108085 - (D) GALLIGA 103 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk ALLEN, NICHOLAS E

2168 Ex Parte Munro et al 12082560 - (D) MacDONALD 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PH) FAN, SHIOW-JY

2177 Ex Parte Hedloy 13449086 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103/obviousness-type double patenting Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP FABER, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Patil 11830157 - (D) STEPHENS 112(1)/103 BGL/Yahoo! Overture BELIVEAU, SCOTT E

2468 Ex Parte Bloebaum et al 11761606 - (D) HUME 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON KASSIM, KHALED M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Hamey et al 12423593 - (D) CHUNG 102/103 DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP HAJNIK, DANIEL F

2643 Ex Parte Dressler et al 11733603 - (D) JURGOVAN 101/103 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz & Ottesen, LLP GEORGEWILL, OPIRIBO

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Russell et al 11353941 - (D) FETTING 103 DENTONS US LLP (CITI CUSTOMER NUMBER) SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3644 Ex Parte MacKenzie 11623168 - (D) MAYBERRY 102/103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP WILLIAMS, MONICA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Peterson 12509234 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 101/102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 GEORGE PHILIP WHITE MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

3741 Ex Parte Harris 12046411 - (D) BROWNE 103 112(1) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

3771 Ex Parte Sleeper et al 12099395 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103/obviousness-type double patenting McDermott Will & Emery LLP LOUIS, LATOYA M

REHEARING

DENIED
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

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex parte VEGAS AMUSEMENT, INC. Ex Parte 7201661 et al 11/189,016 90012239 - (D) COCKS 103 DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Winston & Strawn, LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G original NGUYEN, KIM T

net moneyin, hockerson-halberstadt alza

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Röhrl 13103421 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH LEWIS, BEN

[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

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

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Lechner et al 11006805 - (D) BROWN 103 DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC WMS GAMING (DELIZIO GILLIAM) PANDYA, SUNIT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Feld et al 12390202 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SIMPSON, SARAH A

3733 Ex Parte Jacene et al 11371741 - (D) JENKS 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP HOFFMAN, MARY C

“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halbertstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the drawings could not be relied upon to construe whether the term “central longitudinal groove” required that the width of the groove be less than the combined width of the fins).

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ausschnitt et al 12360132 - (D) BEST 103 102/103 DeLIO, PETERSON & CURCIO, LLC JELSMA, JONATHAN G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Ambrosio et al 12042012 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/102 112(1)/102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP BORISSOV, IGOR N

However, one “cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification.” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 94 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2161.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Tryon et al 12011872 - (D) GARRIS 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Murthy 12415934 - (D) COURTENAY 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. JONES, HUGH M

2166 Ex Parte Gruetzner et al 12353195 - (D) KAISER 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG LIN, SHEW FEN

2169 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305871 - (D) BAER 103 Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino LLP/HBC Corporation KIM, PAUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Wu et al 12260528 - (D) BRANCH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC NGUY, CHI D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Kuc 11268419 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. DIVECHA, NISHANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Pilpel et al 12021434 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP STEPHAN, BETH A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Duppert et al 12015571 - (D) JESCHKE 112(2) 112(1)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3754 Ex Parte Morgan et al 11746214 - (D) ASTORINO 103 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. DEERY, ERIN LEAH

peterson, iron grip, stepan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Lisa et al 10999580 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Such a finding shifts the burden to the Applicant to show that the claimed invention is non-obvious in view of the cited art, for example, by showing that the claimed range is critical and achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Id.; see also Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention . . . or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.”)

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 716.02(d) , 2144.05

Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2144.05

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Graser et al 12094858 - (D) HUGHES 103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) HOLDER, BRADLEY W

2473 Ex Parte Allan et al 12259560 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 Daniels IP Services LTD. LIU, JUNG

2619 Ex Parte Smith 11829453 - (D) DIXON 102 CRAIN, CATON & JAMES HARRISON, CHANTE E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sasamoto et al 11676510 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 James W. Judge JENNISON, BRIAN W

3752 Ex Parte Shanklin et al 11252347 - (D) GREENHUT 102/obviousness-type double patenting MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

The PTO has a statutory obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to provide timely notice to the applicant of all “matters of fact and law asserted.” See In re Stepan Co., 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(citing 5 U.S.C. § 554(b)). 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) provides that “[a]n appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection.” When this appeal was taken on April 3, 2012, “the rejection” for purposes of § 41.31(c) was that set forth in the Final Office action of January 3, 2012. By failing to designate the rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer as a “new ground” under 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) the Examiner failed to comply with our rules and, potentially, the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

AFFIRMED–IN–PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Caligiuri et al 11629638 - (D) POLLOCK 103 102 Yankwich & Associates, P.C. RICCI, CRAIG D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Fornage 12804017 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 MOSER TABOADA YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Braedt 11689466 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 SRAM, LLC MOMPER, ANNA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kristen et al 12799184 - (D) MURPHY 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC LOPEZ, MICHELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Todd 12443830 - (D) Per Curiam 112(2)/102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG KUDDUS, DANIEL A

2198 Ex Parte Novak 12249423 - (D) HUME 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WU, DAXIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Brown et al 12242216 - (D) HORVATH 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

2447 Ex Parte Tierney et al 12005985 - (D) HUME 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOSHI, SURAJ M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Sela 11161051 - (D) THOMAS 103 YOSSY SELA HUYNH, CHUCK

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 MOVEA SA. Patent Owner and Appellant v. HILLCREST LABORATORIES, INC. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 8010313 et al 09/989,011 95000645 - (D) BRANCH 103 DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original BHAT, NINA NMN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 INTEGRATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester, Respondent v. KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,029,437 B2 et al 12/413,891 95002301 - (D) SONG 112(1)/120 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC Third Party Requester: Troutman Sanders LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

zletz, garnero

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Dressler et al 13032285 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(1)/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. MAMO, ELIAS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Cordara et al 12308882 - (D) FINK 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP LI, TRACY Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Graefe 12260053 - (D) KUMAR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, VEI CHUNG

2837 Ex Parte Florian et al 11916725 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

However, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed. Claim 1 requires a “sintered monolithic component”. That is, the plain language of the claim requires that the monolithic body be sintered. Appellants’ Specification discloses, on page 12, that

[t]he component is produced through common sintering of the layers located in the layer stack. This occurs preferably in a single processing step.

We thus interpret the claim in this manner, and note that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s claim interpretation, the claimed phrase of “wherein the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer together form a sintered monolithic component” is properly interpreted as meaning that the “sintered monolithic component” is the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer sintered together. See also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations.)

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,   2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) 2113

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Raschke 10933699 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 Siemens Corporation SAXENA, AKASH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Schmand et al 11532665 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Weibezahn 11858652 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VAN, LUAN V

1772 Ex Parte LEFLAIVE et al 12253382 - (D) GARRIS 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. PREGLER, SHARON

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11322608 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP DAYE, CHELCIE L

2165 Ex Parte Weinberg et al 12276009 - (D) BRANCH 103 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Ivtsenkov et al 12022982 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(2) Protective Arms Systems Inc. LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Gross 10856579 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/103 STEVEN VOSEN POUNCIL, DARNELL A

steele

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Schelhaas et al 12072343 - (D) BROWNE 103 THE GATES CORPORATION REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Hirano et al 10430594 - (D) WILSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting ChevronTexaco Corporation MCAVOY, ELLEN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Batni et al 11485890 - (D) FRAHM 103 102/103 Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC DONAGHUE, LARRY D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Weber et al 12191463 - (D) WOODS 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/102/103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ROGERS, LAKIYA G

For the reasons expressed below in the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, these claims are indefinite. Therefore, the prior art rejections of these claims are based on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962).

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 , 2173.06

3753 Ex Parte Steinfels et al 12183811 - (D) BAER 103 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Stanley B&D) FOX, JOHN C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Tirault et al 11320735 - (D) KAMHOLTZ 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CLAYTOR, DEIRDRE RENEE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Schneider 10574721 - (D) McKELVEY 102 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC LEE, DORIS L

angstadt, vaeck, armbruster, marzocchi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Stanton 11601524 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. CHANDRA, SATISH

1756 Ex Parte Detournay et al 12305444 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Solvay America, Inc. PHASGE, ARUN S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2879 Ex Parte Tu et al 12440039 - (D) OWENS 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS STERN, JACOB R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Becken et al 11992369 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

It is well established that the Examiner has the “burden of giving reasons, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification is not enabling…Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO’s initial burden.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976). In determining whether any given disclosure would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed subject matter, the Examiner must consider not only the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction or guidance presented and the presence or absence of working examples, but also the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability or unpredictability of the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When “a [S]pecification disclosure…contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented[,]” such [S]pecification disclosure “must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.” In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975) (quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01 , 2164.06 , 2164.08(b)

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01 ,   2144.08 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(c) ,   2164.03 ,  2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) , 2161 , 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) 2107.01 ,   2107.02 ,   2124 ,   2163 ,   2163.04 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.04 ,   2164.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte BROWN et al 12372681 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte Hildebrandt et al 11911185 - (D) ZADO 103 102/103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP MANDEVILLE, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Franer et al 10943222 - (D) WIEKER 103 102/103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC MCEVOY, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Guilford et al 10289934 - (D) JENKS 103 Daneker, McIntire, Schumm, Prince, Manning & Widmann, P.C. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mager et al 11732574 - (D) SMITH 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

1766 Ex Parte Rische et al 11732575 - (D) SMITH 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Lessing et al 12339983 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 TERADATA CORPORATION PEACH, POLINA G

2166 Ex Parte Malik 12043521 - (D) SHIANG 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC YEN, SYLING

2172 Ex Parte LEE 11835673 - (D) HARLOW 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HUR, ECE

2199 Ex Parte Besbris et al 11281887 - (D) SHIANG 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan MITCHELL, JASON D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Brown 11687545 - (D) BEAMER 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) DUONG, DUC T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte McCloud et al 12966953 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Moon et al 12497261 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP TRAN, NGUYEN

2864 Ex Parte Tran et al 12244096 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HWANG, TIMOTHY