packard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Bryden et al 12029729 - (D) PAK 103 HENKEL CORPORATION TUROCY, DAVID P

1793 Ex Parte Foo et al 13061051 - (D) PAK 102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte McManus et al 12014142 - (D) POTHIER 103 IBM CORPORATION JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Lundberg 11661859 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 VENABLE LLP CHOY, PAN G

3687 Ex Parte Dolan et al 12343857 - (D) LORIN 103 41.50 112(b) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) DANZIG, REVA R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte WAKAGURI et al 12828681 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES MORILLO, JANELL COMBS

1784 Ex Parte Kugo et al 12312498 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2138 Ex Parte Maalempati et al 12643819 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 IBM CORPORATION SAVLA, ARPAN P

2177 Ex Parte Aureglia et al 12258501 - (D) DEJMEK 101/103/double patenting BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE QUELER, ADAM M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2498 Ex Parte Akkanen 11963968 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Bae et al 12209838 - (D) HOUSEL 103 Atkins and Associates, P.C. STATS ChipPAC/PATENT LAW GROUP: PAYEN, MARVIN

2824 Ex Parte Lee et al 12393397 - (D) GARRIS 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC Samsung NGUYEN, VAN THU T

2872 Ex Parte Drinkwater 12499277 - (D) DERRICK 112(1)/112(2)/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CHANG, AUDREY Y

Having carefully considered Appellant's arguments, we find Appellant has failed to squarely address the identified ambiguity leading to indefiniteness.

Section 112, second paragraph, requires that "[t]he specification ... conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."  "As the statutory language of 'particular[ity]' and 'distinct[ness]' indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear - as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite - terms."  In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir 2014). 

Our reviewing court has held that when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which initially the language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirement that the claims be definite.  Id. at 1313-1314.  The court explained a satisfactory response can take the form of modification of the language identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or, in appropriate circumstances, "persuasive explanation for the record of why the language at issue is not actually unclear."  Id. at 1311.

enzo, edwards, carnegie

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Dubey et al 11508356 - (D) BEST 112(1)/103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. HUANG, CHENG YUAN

Appearance of a claim in the specification in ipsis verbis does not guarantee that the written description requirement is satisfied, see, e.g. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002), nor does a failure to meet that standard require a finding that a claim does not comply with the written description requirement, In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 1978).  All that is required is that the specification demonstrates, with reasonable clarity, to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention.  Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2161.01 , 2163

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

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Thai et al 12505191 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Covidien BOSWORTH, KAMI A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Jones et al 12284332 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 ADDMG - ST (foreign-originated only) SCHNEE, HAL W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Kornagel et al 12079143 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NADAV, ORI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Horn et al 10939523 - (D) LORIN 103 Dilworth IP - SAP JASMIN, LYNDA C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Plourde et al 12486974 - (D) KERINS 103 McCarter & English LLP ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. THEIS, MATTHEW T

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Requester, v SIDENSE CORPORATION, Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7402855 et al 10/553,873 95001359 - (D) SIU 103 41.77 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP For Third Party Requestor: PERKINS COIE LLP MCNEIL, JENNIFER C original SEFER, AHMED N

miyazaki, packard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Bousseton et al 12206098 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102/103 41.50 112(1)/112(2) Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott NGUYEN, CHI Q

In determining whether a claim is indefinite, "we employ a lower threshhold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts."  Ex Parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precendential). Our precedential Miyazaki decision "hold[s] that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Id. See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. CIr. 2014). We employ this standard because of our "duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope" and "because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent." Id. at 1211-12.

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b) >

3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11455371 - (D) KIM 102/103 Perman & Green, LLP ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3696 Ex Parte Starmanns et al 11591133 - (D) KIM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NIQUETTE, ROBERT R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Hoarau et al 12358649 - (D) POLLACK 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WALLACE, JOHN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Ari et al 12418484 - (D) KIM 103 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SWARTZ, STEPHEN S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Binette et al 12951205 - (D) ADAMS 103 Mintz Levin/Boston Office SINGH, SATYENDRA K

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Bahnmuller et al 12171513 - (D) Per Curiam 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA TALBOT, BRIAN K

1742 Ex Parte Brodkin et al 12607718 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. TENTONI, LEO B

1771 Ex Parte Fehr et al 12865613 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HINES, LATOSHA D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Lindwer et al 10570966 - (D) KUMAR 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Sorgard et al 11633647 - (D) KUMAR 101 101/103 41.50 112(2) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC AMINI, JAVID A

2681 Ex Parte Grewe 11998057 - (D) KUMAR 103 IP Legal Services LLC MA, KAM WAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sasaki et al 12306709 - (D) HOELTER 103 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3663 Ex Parte Ishihara et al 12821591 - (D) JESCHKE 103 HONEYWELL/IFL MYHRE, KEVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Wechsel 10787205 - (D) KUMAR 103 Dilworth IP - SAP NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.Third Party Requester, Appellant and Respondent v.GRAYWIRE LLC Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 6415082 et al 09/526,091 95001175 - (D) TURNER 112(1) Ascenda Law Group, PC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original LEE, JOHN D

aller, antonie

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11186510 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY MILLIGAN, ADAM C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Fujita et al 12306635 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP MCCORMACK, JASON L

Thus, Sasaki teached that the radius of curvature is a function of various parameters of the tip, including the status of the vacuum, the temperature of the tip, and the electric field.  But it is not apparent that Sasaki teaches how the affected parameters, such as the field intensity or the trajectory of the particle beam, change as a result of the change in the radius.  Absent such a teaching, it cannot be said that a variable is "result-effective."  Cf. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) ("This case, in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable, is another exception [to the rule that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious.]")

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) 2141.02 , 2144.05

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Krampe 12802546 - (D) WIEKER 103 William M. Hobby, III ORTIZ ROMAN, DENISSE Y

3653 Ex Parte Stechschulte et al 12175471 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY BEAUCHAINE, MARK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte JENNINGS et al 12465906 - (D) WIEKER 103 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. WALLACE STAPLETON, ERIC S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Yla-Outinen et al 10730004 - (D) KAISER 103 103 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy SMITH, JOSHUA Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Fritsche et al 12211584 - (D) HILL 103 103 Dorsey & Whitney LLP Disney Enterprises, Inc. LE, MARK T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Power 11963345 - (D) WOODS 103 103 41.50 112(2) NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION DOUGLAS, STEVEN O

In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner's rejection is in error, because "the Examiner failed to show how the length of the delivery path is a result effective variable."  Appeal Br. 11; see also id. at 10 (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977)),

Upon reviewing the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to show how the length of the delivery path is a result effective variable.

As pointed out by Appellant, In re Antonie clarified the principle set forth in In re Aller, requiring the prior art to recognize the parameter to be optimized to be "a result-effective variable."  In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620.  In the present case, the Examiner has not established, through evidence or technical reasoning, that the langth of Bordoni's delivery path is a result-effective variable subject to routine optimization.  See Ans. 3.

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) 2141.02 , 2144.05

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Bucko et al 12663629 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Vesuvius Crucible Company SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Wivell et al 12030372 - (D) SHIANG 103 ADDMG - Harris ALHIJA, SAIF A

2141 Ex Parte Do et al 12416184 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102/103 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION (ROC) BELOUSOV, ANDREY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Lai et al 12309058 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC BEHESHTI SHIRAZI, SAYED ARESH

2493 Ex Parte Hampel et al 12718565 - (D) KAISER 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. ZHAO, DON GORDON

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Roux 12609818 - (D) KHAN 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER SITTA, GRANT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Basir 12418642 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Cheich et al 12555270 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP TAWFIK, SAMEH

3773 Ex Parte Yeo et al 11568251 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 LEX IP MEISTER, PLLC TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L

sebek, patel, sjolund interval

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Vogelsang et al 12744428 - (D) HARLOW 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BASF SE HAVLIN, ROBERT H

"Where, as here, the prior art disclosure suggests the outer limits of the range of suitable values, and that the optimum resides within that range, and where there are indications elsewhere that in fact the optimum should be sought within that range, the determination of optimum values outside that range may not be obvious."

In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Patel, 566 F.App'x 1005, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpubliched). reh'g denied (Sept. 30, 2014). 

1631 Ex Parte Prior et al 10900352 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/103 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY CLOW, LORI A

“[C]laims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

1632 Ex Parte Baltimore et al 10243817 - (D) FREDMAN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Malkemes et al 11967643 - (D) SHIANG 103 LSI CORPORATION TRAN, PAUL P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte SANO et al 12889606 - (D) HOSKINS 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION SAETHER, FLEMMING

3686 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12317934 - (D) LORIN 102/103 41.50 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC WILLIAMS, TERESA S

Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In sum, the ‘unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user’ phrase, when viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, fails to ‘inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.’”)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Drost et al 12110840 - (D) MURPHY 103 JANSSON MUNGER MCKINLEY & SHAPE LTD. TRUONG, THANH K

3731 Ex Parte Palmer et al 12534030 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MAYBACK & HOFFMAN, P.A. Syntheon LLC TANNER, JOCELIN C

3735 Ex Parte Clement et al 11096801 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MATTHEWS, CHRISTINE HOPKINS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ainscow et al 10579167 - (D) WILSON 102/103 112(2) GABLE & GOTWALS DOUYON, LORNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Hussain et al 11763720 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 102/103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP LEE, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Khvorova et al 10940892 - (D) FREDMAN 101 Dorf & Nelson LLP BRUSCA, JOHN S

1637 Ex Parte Hirsch et al 11658623 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP The Reagents of the University of California KIM, YOUNG J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte CLEMENT et al 12964053 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Huntsman International LLC KHAN, AMINA S

1762 Ex Parte Marchand et al 12864422 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 The Dow Chemical Company DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC TESKIN, FRED M

1767 Ex Parte Schwarz-Barac et al 11913325 - (D) TIMM 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Kesteloot et al 10932330 - (D) NEW 103 KALEIDESCAPE, INC. YEN, SYLING

2177 Ex Parte LIPINSKI et al 11740822 - (D) HOMERE 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Reithler 12593512 - (D) SMITH 103 Price Heneveld LLP/Steelcase Inc. ALAM, MIRZA F

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Wannenwetsch et al 11017769 - (D) KIM 112(1) 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

3628 Ex Parte Binenstock et al 11714292 - (D) LORIN 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1600) CBS Interactive FLYNN, KEVIN H

3645 Ex Parte Harrick 12589134 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. BREIER, KRYSTINE E

3685 Ex Parte Read 11433112 - (D) LORIN 112(1) 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES OBEID, MAMON A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Husmark et al 12514909 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC SCA Hygiene Products AB HAND, MELANIE JO

no cases today

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Asati et al 12315454 - (D) SHIANG 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP RANDHAWA, MANDISH K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12870862 - (D) KIM 112(2)/101/103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ PAULS, JOHN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Simpson 12462082 - (D) KIM 103 Deirdra M Meagher STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING

k-tec

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mazurek et al 13296362 - (D) McKELVEY 102 41.50 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY KAHN, RACHEL

1792 Ex Parte Ter Haar et al 12168412 - (D) WARREN 103 POLSINELLI PC ZILBERING, ASSAF

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Lee et al 11482821 - (D) PINKERTON 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. YI, RINNA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 12128133 - (D) SIU 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2166 Ex Parte Ragan 11139131 - (D) GALLIGAN 102 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA PHAM, KHANH B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11296680 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. SIMPSON, SARAH A

To be analogous art, a reference must be either in the same field of endeavor as the subject invention, or "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved."  See, e.g., K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
3102 SQUARE, INC., Requester, v. REM HOLDINGS 3, LLC, Owner Ex Parte 7810729 et al 07/163,192 95001618 - (D) POTHIER 103 The Law Office of Kirk D. Williams OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P original HODGSON, RUSS, ANDREWS, WOODS RUBIN, MARGARET R

bigio, bigio, hyatt2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11560930 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. POUNCIL, DARNELL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Knoerzer et al 12716033 - (D) GARRIS 103 102 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

We agree with Appellants that Melican is not analogous art. The Examiner’s opposing view apparently is based on the proposition that the inventions of Melican and claim 1 are in the same field of endeavor because they are both directed to composites. However, such a proposition so broadly characterizes the field of Appellants’ endeavor as to render meaningless this aspect of the test for non-analogous art. Here, the Examiner has failed to “correctly set the field of the invention by consulting the structure and function of the claimed invention as perceived by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Carbone et al 12022184 - (D) HUME 102 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ALHIJA, SAIF A

We note, "[d]uring prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of common claim element "hardware" does not exclude such hardware disclosed in Fig. 8 of the cited reference, nor does the broadest reasonable interpretation of "virtualization layer" preclude the inclusion of hardware device drivers in such a layer.

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Hyatt, In re, 211 F.3d 1367, 54 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2111

armbruster, marzocchi, angstadt, sullivan, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Bastian 12420311 - (D) HORVATH 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. SHIN, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Taylor et al 12830810 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2) ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC k-Space Associates, Inc. KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL

As the predecessor to our reviewing court stated in In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975):

[A] specification disclosure which 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 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.

(quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).  However, the Examiner did not supply a sufficient reason to doubt the object truth of the statements in the Specification.  Nor did the Exminer proffer any evidence to show that the above spectra preprocessing steps could not be conducted without "undue experimentation."  In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976) (explaining that the Examiner has the "burden of giving reason, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification in not enabling.... Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO's initial burden ....")  The Examiner did not even meaningfully address the Rule 132 Affidavits of record relied upon by Appellants to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform the above spectra preprocessing steps recited in the claims based on the information provided in the Specification.  Compare Ans. 8 with App. Br. 6-7; In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaning that failure to meaningfully address submitted evidence is error). Rather than focusing on the sufficiency of any underlying evidence and/or any passages of the Specification relied upon by the affiants for their averments, the Examiner inappropriately ignored the contents of the Rule 132 Affidavits because the affiants were deemed experts, rather that one of ordinary skill in the art.  Ans. 8; see, e.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that an expert testimony can be relied on to show the state of the art, e.g., the knowledge of one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.)

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

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

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Hanes 11669232 - (D) KAISER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MESA, JOSE M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Rasmusson et al 12127462 - (D) FINK 112(2) 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC CRADDOCK, ROBERT J

mouttet

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Flinn et al 13027042 - (D) MacDONALD 103 MANYWORLDS, INC. BHARADWAJ, KALPANA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte King et al 11241136 - (D) GRIMES 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) Depuy Products, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson Company ORWIG, KEVIN S

Because the order in which the references are listed in the rejection makes no substantive difference, we consider this rejection to be simply an alternative statement of the rejection listed above.  See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Sharma et al 12546008 - (D) SMITH 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. BELOUSOV, ANDREY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Schedelbeck et al 11696515 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) FOUD, HICHAM B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Jungerink 11755319 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Blank Rome LLP Weatherford/Precision BENLAGSIR, AMINE