giacomini, lockwood, jepson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Haltiner et al 12788834 - (D) McSHANE 103 Delphi Technologies, Inc. DUDLEY, ARCHER DAVIS

1786 Ex Parte KWONG et al 13233213 - (D) NAGUMO 103 Duane Morris LLP (UDC) CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Moon et al 11877184 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Jiang 11984779 - (D) MacDONALD 103 41.50 112(2) Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. ALMEIDA, DEVIN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Collomosse et al 12179857 - (D) COURTENAY 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHEN, XUEMEI G

Our reviewing court guides, "[A]n application is not entitled to a patent if another's patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application."  In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide provisional written description support for the claimed invention."  Id. (emphasis added). ...

However, our reviewing court clarifies that "it is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure....  Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device,' ... A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fd. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963))(emphasis added). ...

Because of the Examiner's repeated reliance on the word "implied" in the Final Office Action, and based upon our review of the record, we are persuaded the Liu application, at best, may render obvious some portions of the necessary support.  However, under 112, first paragraph (written description), "[a] description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572. (Emphasis added).

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

2691 Ex Parte MA 11840906 - (D) JIVANI 112(1)/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. YANG, KWANG-SU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Lich et al 12665897 - (D) HOFFMAN 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LANG, MICHAEL DEAN

3671 Ex Parte KUREK 12620908 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 41.50 112(2) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Diehl et al 10487489 - (D) THOMAS 103 103 MYERS WOLIN, LLC HOLDER, BRADLEY W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Zhang 12010150 - (D) HORVATH 103 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LEE, JUSTIN YE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Davis et al 12239964 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 BGL/Yahoo! Overture MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte State 11775332 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 112(2)/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. NGUYEN, TIN DUC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte HAAS et al 12487137 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Peled et al 10927044 - (D) HAAPALA 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. WANG, HARRIS C

2447 Ex Parte Rimac et al 12813026 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. JOSHI, SURAJ M

2457 Ex Parte Esfahany et al 12582201 - (D) BAER 103 Baker Botts LLP NANO, SARGON N
AFFIRMED 2625 Ex Parte Sun 11372458 - (D) MANTIS MERCADOR 103 Griggs Bergen LLP SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte CRUESS et al 12203480 - (D) HUME 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. NGUYEN, TUAN HOANG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Keeton et al 12332469 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 NCR Corporation SMITH, CHAD

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Blouin et al 11303165 - (D) FETTING 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) JASMIN, LYNDA C

3646 Ex Parte Newman et al 12423411 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(1) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3659 Ex Parte Silva et al 12641829 - (D) HOELTER 103 FCA US LLC KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

3689 Ex Parte Villena et al 10536692 - (D) McSHANE 102/103 Northern Virginia Law and Technology Services, LLC RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

3693 Ex Parte Richter 11475573 - (D) FETTING 101 Welsh & Katz, Ltd. WEISBERGER, RICHARD C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Harpell 12381031 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 JACK PAAVILA MULLER, BRYAN R

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Koefelda et al 11499251 - (D) WOODS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 SEMILEDS CORPORATION Requester and Respondent v. CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Edmonds et al 7,737,459 11/112,429 95001627 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON Third Party Requester: Baker Botts LLP original MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original LOUIE, WAI SING

texas instruments, boehringer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Keller et al 12911117 - (D) GARRIS 102/double patenting NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Rodgers et al 11743533 - (D) KAISER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HERZOG, MADHURI R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11671264 - (D) KHAN 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP TRAN, MONG-THUY THI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte KAWAKAMI 12233754 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/102/103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP YABUT, DANIEL D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schaeffer et al 11810533 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago MATHEW, SEEMA

3763 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11485619 - (D) MILLS 102/103 IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte van Os et al 12364470 - (D) SHAW 103 103 Apple c/o Morrison & Foerster LLP SF TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Zufall et al 11797048 - (D) DANG 103 103 Dorsey & Whitney LLP d/b/a DBSD Satellite Services G.P. DISH Network L.L.C. TRAN, PAUL P

Given the language used, the "such that" clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the resulting condition (enabling the mobile units/device to perform an intended function of combining with multicast content) that occurs when the multicast data is transmitted, as positively recited in claims 44 and 69.  Thus, the "such that" clause at issue is akin to a "whereby" clause that merely states the result of transmitting the multicast data.  Our reviewing court has conluded that "[a] 'whereby' clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation ommitted).  Further, our reviewing court guides: "[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates." Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, we find the claims merely require "transmitting" from a satellite multicast data to mobile units/device.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte HOURIET et al 12967626 - (D) MOHANTY 103 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP LONG, FONYA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Chan 12869939 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 Edell, Shapiro & Finnan LLC SIMMS JR, JOHN ELLIOTT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte BUTTERBAUGH et al 13082676 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC COLEMAN, RYAN L

1793 Ex Parte STRILICH et al 12578929 - (D) WILSON 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Nair 12463135 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) KIM, TAE K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Satyavolu et al 13082762 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates CPA Global ROJAS, HAJIME S

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 ARTERIS, INC. and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6816814 et al 10/293,734 95000667 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP LIE, ANGELA M original DESTA, ELIAS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,191,273 et al 10/963,271 95000663 - (D) SIU 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP KE, PENG original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

russell, miller2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte EGNOR 12816245 - (D) MacDONALD 102 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Piech 12298787 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. KRUER, STEFAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte KANEKO et al 12574252 - (D) NAGUMO 102 102/103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C. HAUGHTON, ANTHONY MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Xing et al 12298184 - (D) DEJMEK 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT NGUYEN, DINH

2646 Ex Parte DYER 12981343 - (D) PYONIN 103 Vista IP Law Group, LLP WASHINGTON, ERIKA ALISE

2668 Ex Parte Hammell et al 12327873 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. MANGIALASCHI, TRACY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bliznak et al 11319375 - (D) MOHANTY 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP LAN, TZU-HSIANG

3643 Ex Parte Nixon-Lane 12815822 - (D) BAHR 112(1) 102/103 BGL/Ann Arbor BANIANI, SHADI SHUNTI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Daft 13277537 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP FRISBY, KESHA

See In re Russell, 48 F.2d 668 (CCPA 1931) (affirming rejection and stating "[t]he mere arrangement of printed matter on a sheet or sheets of paper, in book form or otherwise, does not constitute 'any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' or 'any new or useful improvements thereof'" (quoting former 35 U.S.C. 31)); see also In re Ockman, 833 F.2d 1023 (Fed. Cir 1987) (unpublished) (affirming rejection of plans or drawings used in construction projects because "[i]nsofar as the claims involve no more than printed matter, gathering data and forwarding information to others, those claims are non-statutory under 101") (citing In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969) and Russel)); Miller, 418 F.2d at 1396 (discussing, in dicta, that "[t]he fact that printed matter by itself is not patentable subject matter, because non-statutory, is no reason for ignoring it when the claim is directed to a combination").

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) 706.03(a) , 2106 ,

3717 Ex Parte Bracken et al 12291330 - (D) BAHR 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - Sony Computer Ent. GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

REEXAMINATION

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 ARTERIS, INC. and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7266786 et al 10/288,973 95000671 - (R) BAUMEISTER dissenting SIU 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third Party Requester: DLA Piper (US) LLP SORRELL, ERON J original RIMELL, SAMUEL G

atofina, lizardtech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Smith et al 11363359 - (D) HUDALLA 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) AGHDAM, FRESHTEH N

2643 Ex Parte Hiltunen et al 11783749 - (D) DANG 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC GEORGEWILL, OPIRIBO

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte ALBERS et al 11874345 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 BURR & BROWN, PLLC REDMAN, JERRY E

3645 Ex Parte Wong et al 12965793 - (D) BROWNE 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP PARC-XEROX/BSTZ HULKA, JAMES R

Moreover, although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that Nam’s CMOS structure is a field-effect transistor (see Ans. 3), we note that disclosure of a genus in the prior art, i.e., field-effect transistor, is not a disclosure of every species that is a member of that genus, i.e., thin film transistor. See Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2131.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte ALBERTH et al 11955786 - (D) LaVIER 103 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Motorola LONG, ANDREA NATAE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Queenan 10771480 - (D) HAAPALA 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (SB) NGUYEN, NAM V

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Sacks 13190685 - (D) ROESEL 103 Weiss & Arons, LLP HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE

1767 Ex Parte Null et al 11922614 - (D) McKELVEY 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1787 Ex Parte Toyama et al 11720688 - (D) KAISER 112(1)/103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP HUANG, CHENG YUAN

LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a description of a single embodiment "does not entitle the inventor" to broad claims).

LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 76 USPQ2d 1724 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2161.01 , 2163

1791 Ex Parte Chan et al 11949806 - (D) ROESEL 103 Ballard Spahr LLP DuPont Pioneer BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2131 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12424444 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) CARDWELL, ERIC

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Han 11987109 - (D) BAER 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC NAWAZ, ASAD M

2473 Ex Parte BATTA 12261886 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Zebra Technologies Corporation LIU, JUNG

2486 Ex Parte Frenzel et al 10593840 - (D) BAER 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP MUNG, ON S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Walsh et al 12063643 - (D) SMITH 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP PERROMAT, CARLOS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2845 Ex Parte ZHU et al 13048202 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Guntin & Gust, PLC - BB DOCKET WIMER, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Kelly et al 13177614 - (D) BROWNE 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C TILLMAN, JR, REGINALD S

3658 Ex Parte RICK 12487477 - (D) KINDER 112(2) 102/103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GME) PRATHER, GREGORY T

mayne, catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA

1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C

2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J

Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”

Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A

general foods, vogel, eli lilly, aldrich

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chardon et al 11742019 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Zeng 11827741 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAYER, PAUL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Teratani et al 11408240 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1755 Ex Parte Fulton et al 12292346 - (D) TIMM double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The key question in any obviousness double patenting analyis is: "Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?"  General Foods Corp. v. Studiengessellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed, Cir, 1992) (discussing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  After determinig the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct.  In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

It is critical during the analysis that no part of the patent be used as "prior art" against the claims under review.  This includes the claims themselves. See In re Aldrich, 398 F.2d 855, 859 (CCPA 1968) ("double patenting rejection[s] cannot be based on section 103,... or on the disclosures of the patents whose claims are relied on to demonstrate double patenting or on the 'disclosures' of their claims... [P]atent claims are looked to only to see what has been patented, the subject matter which has been protected, not for something one may find to be disclosed by reading them") (emphasis added).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Miller 11958337 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Yin et al 12117927 - (D) FINK 102/103 KIRTON MCCONKIE RICHER, AARON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Kwong et al 11488799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHEN, XIAOLIANG

lifescan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Honda et al 11995600 - (D) SHAW 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. BUTLER, SARAI E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 12224809 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP PAIK, SANG YEOP

3763 Ex Parte Hu et al 11476416 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte King et al 12182465 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 102/103 Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11964058 - (D) KINDER 102 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY ELLIS, RYAN H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Aylor et al 12287070 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 103 ROBERT B. AYLOR GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Sukanen et al 12401062 - (D) ZADO 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. GOFMAN, ALEX N

2169 Ex Parte ARUNAGIRI et al 12767920 - (D) NEW 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS ALLEN, BRITTANY N

As such, a person of ordinary skill would be capable of performing these operations with pencil and paper, in her head.  See Lifescan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, 734 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  As sich, the steps performed are common procedures and noninventive, and we agree with the Examiner they would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the prior art.

2184 Ex Parte Mann 11540377 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY SUN, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Green et al 12883022 - (D) PYONIN 101/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DUFFIELD, JEREMY S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Bosan et al 12394495 - (D) COURTENAY 103 MOFFAT-RIM SHEN, QUN

2684 Ex Parte Wischmeyer 13086892 - (D) NEW 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. BURGDORF, STEPHEN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Vandiver 12831757 - (D) WOODS 102 Arent Fox LLP MILLNER, MONICA E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Bracken et al 12313297 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - Sony Computer Ent. GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Arlein et al 12241699 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HAILU, TADESSE

kuhle, king

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Subramaniam 12354974 - (D) ARBES 103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Takala et al 12323737 - (D) BUI 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP POTRATZ, DANIEL B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Wildfang 11908046 - (D) BROWNE 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. JONAITIS, JUSTIN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Basir et al 11830575 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. LOUIE, WAE LENNY

Neither this disclosure nor Appellant's attorney argument supports a finding that it would not be a matter of design choice to have Funk's voice portal server 104 provide speech recognition for numbers, as well as words, to determine a destination for routing purposes.  See, e.g., In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) (concluding that the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and "would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art") (citation omitted)

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) 2144.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Westrup 13012720 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Bulluck et al 11199494 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Egan, Peterman & Enders LLP. RIOJA, MELISSA A

We also emphasize that Appellants’ argument is undermined by legal precedent that, “[t]o anticipate, the prior art need only meet the inherently disclosed limitation to the extent the patented method does.” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2010). That is, based on the record before us, it is reasonable to believe the compositions of Sellstrom inherently exhibit surface isotherms to the same extent as the identical compositions claimed by Appellants.

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 Ex Parte Djordjevic 12134380 - (D) HOMERE 112(2) 103 John S. Economou AYASH, MARWAN

2159 Ex Parte Gross 12191999 - (D) McMILLIN 103 PATENTBEST MAMILLAPALLI, PAVAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Friskney et al 11964534 - (D) HOMERE 102 Daniels IP Services LTD. MILLS, DONALD L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Anastas et al 12272547 - (D) DEJMEK 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SASINOWSKI, ANDREW

2628 Ex Parte Noda 10911546 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 FISHMAN STEWART YAMAGUCHI PLLC JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

2637 Ex Parte Karstens 12043332 - (D) DEJMEK 112(1)/103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW LI, SHI K

2641 Ex Parte Fomin et al 12040131 - (D) BEAMER 103 Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Qualcomm LAI, DANIEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chaudhry 12441798 - (D) HOELTER 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3742 Ex Parte Dighe et al 12378167 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP NGUYEN, HUNG D