wright2, enzo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Khalsa et al 12587130 - (D) OWENS 103 Imperium Patent Works, LLP LUONG, HENRY T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte HASCHKE et al 12778597 - (D) BAHR 103 112(1) 41.50 112(2) Clark Hill PLC PASCUA, JES F

The claimed subject matter need not be described “in haec verba” in the original specification in order to satisfy the written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, “[t]he disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Wright, In re, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2163 , 2163.03

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

hitachi

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bak et al 12822772 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 101 41.50 101 J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Tomatsu et al 12120172 - (D) JENKS double patenting FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO HANEY, AMANDA MARIE

While we agree that obviousness-type double patenting must be based on the claims, “this does not mean that the court must close its eyes to the specification entirely. For example, the court may look to the specification to define terms found in the claims.” In re Hitachi Metals, Ltd., 603 Fed. Appx. 976, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

datamize

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Doney 11496030 - (D) FREDMAN 103 International Specialty Products ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Buerger et al 12389858 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP FLYNN, KEVIN H

See Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Datamize has offered no objective definition identifying a standard for determining when an interface screen is ‘aesthetically pleasing.’ . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.”).

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

3687 Ex Parte Johnsmeyer et al 12351575 - (D) FETTING 103 Hovey Williams LLP DANZIG, REVA R

3695 Ex Parte Gorelik et al 12825505 - (D) FETTING 112(4)/103 Victor Gorelik ROBINSON, KITO R

reading and bates, beckman, symbol tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Beaurain et al 10498234 - (D) SHAH 102/103 Denko Coburn Lauff LLP BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Roth 12004172 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 THE LAW OFFICES OF DONNA L. ANGOTTI EBNER, KATY MEYER

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether enablement is a requirement for a reference cited in an obviousness rejection and determined the following: 

While a reference must enable someone to practice the invention in order to anticipate under §102(b), a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103. Reading & Bates Constr. Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 652, 223 USPQ 1168, 1173 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (reference that lacks enabling disclosure is not anticipating, but “itself may qualify as a prior art reference under § 103, but only for what is disclosed in it” (emphasis in original)); see Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed.Cir. 1989) (“[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches”). 

Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Atala et al 11083602 - (D) MILLS 103 41.50 103 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP SCHLIENTZ, LEAH H

1618 Ex Parte Draper 11684666 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Blue Filament Law VU, JAKE MINH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Tienor 12032868 - (D) SMITH 103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. WOODALL, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Glomset et al 12639435 - (D) SMEGAL 103 The BOC Group, Inc. EVANS, EBONY E

avid

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Kahn et al 11501985 - (D) SHIANG 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. ZHAO, DAQUAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte LU et al 11841486 - (D) McCARTNEY 112(6) ROBERT E MALM POINT, RUFUS C

The Federal Circuit considered a similar situation involving the same technology and real party in interest in In re Avid Identification Systems, Inc., 504 F. App’x 885 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential). The majority opinion acknowledged the possibility that the “procedure for interpreting the ‘means for . . . ’ clause was not followed,” although the majority characterized Avid’s handling of the issue as an “alleged procedural fault.” Id. at 889–90. The dissenting opinion determined the PTO failed to establish the cited art disclosed the limitations at issue because the PTO did not perform the necessary 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 analysis. See id. at 891–94 (Clevenger, J., dissenting). Because both Avid opinions agree “the use of the word ‘means’ requires a search for structure in the application at issue,” id. at 890, we find the Examiner erred in not performing this analysis.

nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte WARD et al 12260445 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 ANTHONY ASQUITH SASAKI, SHOGO

The 2nd paragraph of § 112 requires that claims, viewed in light of the specification, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty while recognizing absolute precision is unattainable. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Mirza et al 12603482 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102/103 Betty E. Ungerman STEVENS, THOMAS H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Kouhi 12469217 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2)/103 MARKS & CLERK COLEMAN, WILLIAM D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte LANGER et al 12694884 - (D) GARRIS 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Bair 12181187 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 112(1)/102/103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte LEVINE et al 12062603 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Prass LLP LEE, TOMMY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12592541 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Mantovan et al 12445078 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PAIK, SANG YEOP

gechter

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Mirza et al 12603482 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102/103 Betty E. Ungerman STEVENS, THOMAS H

“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

merck

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 HTC CORPORATION, Requester, v. IPCOM GMBH, Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6,879,830 et al 09/478,586 95001192 - (D) SIU 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS PERKINS COIE LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original MILORD, MARCEAU

One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 707.07(f) ,  716.02 ,  2143.02 ,  2144.08 ,  2144.09 ,  2145

eaton,

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Melsheimer et al 11842338 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago MARCETICH, ADAM M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte Jung et al 12799367 - (D) WINSOR 101/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC TREHAN, AKSHAY

2691 Ex Parte Yang et al 11753831 - (D) ENGELS 103 WPAT, PC YANG, KWANG-SU

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 PPG Industries, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Valspar Sourcing, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8092876 et al 12/505,236 95001950 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 Turner Boyd LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck KUGEL, TIMOTHY J original MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

1792 PPG Industries, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Valspar Sourcing, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7592047 et al 11/253,161 95001951 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 Turner Boyd LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck KUGEL, TIMOTHY J original CAMERON, ERMA C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 LT GAME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Requester and Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL GAMING SUPPORT OF AMERICA, LLC, Owner Ex Parte 8087984 et al 11/232,240 95002145 - (D) POTHIER 103 41.55 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC SAADAT, CAMERON original THOMAS, ERIC M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, Inc. Third Party Requester, v. SCHRADER ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7518495 et al 10/716,121 95002268 - (D) MOORE 103 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) Third Party Requester: FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP NGUYEN, MINH DIEU T original POPE, DARYL C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 SEVERSTAL NORTH AMERICA, INC., TATA STEEL, and VOESTALPINE STAHL GmbH Requesters v. ARCELORMITTAL Patent Owner Ex Parte 6564604 et al 09/827,167 95001214 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: REISING ETHINGTON P.C. NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON LILLIS, EILEEN DUNN original LARSON, LOWELL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 UNISENSE FERTILITECH A/S Respondent and Requester v. Patent of THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7963906 et al 12/982,341 95001785 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 41.55 102/103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: THOMPSON COBURN LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original BERTOGLIO, VALARIE E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. Requester, Respondent v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8151923 et al 12/968,749 95002011 - (D) SONG 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP-Polaris Third Party Requester: Thomas, Karceski & Karmilovich, PC ENGLISH, PETER C original STABLEY, MICHAEL R

3611 BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. Requester, Respondent v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7854285 et al 11/709,421 95002010 - (D) SONG 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP-Polaris Third Party Requester: Thomas, Karceski & Karmilovich, PC ENGLISH, PETER C original STABLEY, MICHAEL R

3635 TANDUS FLOORING, INC Requester v. INTERFACE, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7721502 et al 11/251,733 95001726 - (D) MARTIN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE PLLC GELLNER, JEFFREY L original NGUYEN, CHI Q

J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.”).

3635 TANDUS FLOORING, INC Requester v. INTERFACE, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7464510 et al 11/018,947 95001725 - (D) MARTIN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLPTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE PLLC GELLNER, JEFFREY L original NGUYEN, CHI Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex parte ALLIED MACHINE & ENGINEERING CORP. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7942616 et al 12/623,061 90012666 - (D) SONG 103 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Karma, INC. Hamilton IP Law, PC FETSUGA, ROBERT M original HOWELL, DANIEL W

3751 INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD. Requester v. FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6877530 et al 10/457,066 95000335 - (D) MARTIN 112(2)/103 Baxter Corporation Englewood c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP Third Party Requester: OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original MAUST, TIMOTHY LEWIS

3764 STRAVA, INC.; MAPMYFITNESS, INC.; & FITNESSKEEPER, INC. Third Party Requesters v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,789,800 et al 11/314,133 95002359 - (D) MARTIN 103 Maschoff Brennan THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. DEMILLE, DANTON D original RICHMAN, GLENN E

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 INOVA LABS, INC. Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant v. INOGEN, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 6605136 et al 95001886 - (R) MARTIN KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. DIAMOND, ALAN D original SPITZER, ROBERT H

bayer4

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Munro et al 11325998 - (D) WARNER 103 PPG Industries, Inc. LEWIS, JUSTIN V

AFFIRMED
2892 Ex Parte Belek 11666471 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP IDA, GEOFFREY H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Connors et al 10831813 - (D) WOODS 103 BRINKS GILSON & LIONE HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 BUTAMAX™ ADVANCED BIOFUELS LLC Requester and Respondent v. GEVO, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8241878 et al 13/296,944 95002167 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102 41.77 102 EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: COOLEY, LLP Railey, Johnny F. original ROBINSON, HOPE A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 CONSTELLIUM FRANCE Requester v. ALCOA INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8118950 et al 10/173,999 95002150 - (D) GUEST 103 ALCOA TECHNICAL CENTER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Susan E. Shaw McBee DIAMOND, ALAN D original MARTINELL, JAMES

(citing Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, 575 F. 3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful an invention would not have been obvious.”).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex parte Personal Web Technologies, LLC and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Appellant Ex Parte 5,978,791 et al 08/960,079 90012931 - (D) BRANCH 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Haynes and Boone, LLP REICHLE, KARIN M original MOFIZ, APU M

2162 MICROSTRATEGY INC. Requester v. VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7720861 et al 11/592,447 95000697 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. Third Party Requester: Fish & Richardson, PC LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

2162 MICROSTRATEGY INC. Requester v. VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8082268 et al 12/781,347 95000699 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. Third Party Requester: Fish & Richardson, PC LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 HULU, LLC. Requester, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Owner Ex Parte 7870592 et al 09/921,097 95002358 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original CHOWDHURY, SUMAIYA A

2453 APPLE, INC. Requester, v. VIRNETX INC., Owner Ex Parte 8051181 et al 11/679,416 95001949 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP BONSHOCK, DENNIS G original LIM, KRISNA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 FEDEX CORPORATION, Requester v. IPVENTURE INC., Patent Owner Ex Parte 7212829 et al 09/547,901 95001896 - (D) HOFF 102/103 IPVENTURE, INC. Third Party Requester: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP NGUYEN, MINH DIEU T original NGUYEN, THUAN T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2817 Ex parte AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,294,953 B1 et al 09/258,974 90012363 - (D) HOFF FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original KINKEAD, ARNOLD M

vasudevan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Bahar 12660647 - (D) LORIN 103 MARVIN A. GLAZER LUDWIG, PETER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Baum 12329336 - (D) HORNER 103 JOHN R LEY, LLC EKIERT, TERESA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Kernan et al 12952288 - (D) WILSON 103 DACHENG LAW OFFICES, LLP MAX ERA INC. QI, HUA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Gyure et al 11642452 - (D) SAADAT 103 STEVEN E. BACH, ATTORNEY AT LAW HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Coker et al 12653874 - (D) FRAHM 102/double patenting MARLIN KNIGHT WONG, KIN C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Lazar 12586378 - (D) HOSKINS 112(2)/101/103 BERELI M. LAZAR KLEIN, GABRIEL J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Dogleg Right Corporation Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7344450 et al 11/467,136 95000378 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original PASSANITI, SEBASTIANO

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex parte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7844915 et al 11/620,717 90012332 - (D) SAADAT 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BRYAN CAVE LLP YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original BAUTISTA, XIOMARA L

In fact, the term “a two or more finger touch” is mentioned only once in column 6 of Appellant’s Specification whereas in other instances a gesture operation is performed based on “a user input having two or more input points” (emphasis added).

Additionally, we are unpersuaded that the cited supplemental authority, filed April 20, 2015, supports Appellant’s position regarding the conjunctive interpretation of “or” in the disputed claim limitation. We observe that Appellant’s argued position differs from the decision in Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 2014-1094 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2015) because, unlike Vasudevan, Appellant has not pointed to any part of the prosecution history to show that Appellant was relying on the definition based on a conjunctive interpretation of “or.”

Vasudevan - "The conjunctive interpretation is also consistent with proper grammar, where the phrase "`not A, B, or C' means `not A, not B, and not C.'" A. Scalia &. B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 119 (2012) (citing DeMorgan's theorem)."

ziegler

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Bazan et al 12174871 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 MERCK CHERNYSHEV, OLGA N

A nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed provisional application if, among other things, the later-claimed invention is described in the provisional application in a manner that satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 35 U.S.C. § 1 19(e)(l) (2006). The enablement requirement of § 112, ¶ l, in turn, incorporates the utility requirement of § 101. See In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200—01 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The rejection is based on the Examiner's conclusion that the "provisional application does not disclose a specific and substantial practical utility for the now claimed antibodies" and therefore does not meet the requirements of 101 and 112, ¶ l . (Ans. 6.) 

Ziegler, In re, 992 F.2d 1197, 26 USPQ2d 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 2103 , 2107.01 , 2107.02 , 2163 , 2163.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Shuster 11867345 - (D) PINKERTON 103 103 Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP PHAM, LINH K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Subramanian 12145313 - (D) SMITH 103 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. / PayPal BADAWI, SHERIEF

2196 Ex Parte Abd-El-Malek et al 12464203 - (D) KUMAR 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. KIM, DONG U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Meiby 12334865 - (D) HAMANN 101/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EDWARDS, CAROLYN R

2649 Ex Parte Hannu et al 12809129 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC WANG, FANGHWA

2649 Ex Parte Kalhan 11112492 - (D) SMITH 103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. DEAN, RAYMOND S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte AIKEN 12500636 - (D) HOSKINS 103 John E. Aiken BANIANI, SHADI SHUNTI

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 CARLSON PET PRODUCTS, INC. Respondent, Requester v. Patent of RICHELL U.S.A., INC. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 8,230,816 et al 13/097,603 95002143 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 103 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP Third Party Requester: PANITCH, SCHWARZE, BELISARIO & NADEL LLP GELLNER, JEFFREY L original WILLIAMS, MONICA L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2627 LG ELECTRONICS USA INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS INC., Requester and Appellant,v. INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Patent Owner and Respondent. Ex Parte 7672198 et al 11/727,821 95002236 - (D) McKEOWN 112(1)/112(2) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS (WA) ] LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original HUBER, PAUL W

par pharmaceutical, obiaya

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Tulyani et al 11366901 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. EMPIE, NATHAN H

1754 Ex Parte Ouwerkerk et al 12251822 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BrooksGroup COHEN, BRIAN W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Pham et al 11853737 - (D) STRAUSS 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KURIEN, CHRISTEN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Machida et al 11513103 - (D) HANLON 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the concept of inherency when applied to obviousness is present “when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements”); Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”).

Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f) , 2145 , 2258

1747 Ex Parte Amino et al 11832933 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1791 Ex Parte Zheng et al 11615457 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/112(2) 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Nicholas et al 11352839 - (D) HAAPALA 103 CARDINAL LAW GROUP TRAN, NAM T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Firminger et al 12658256 - (D) MOHANTY 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Clay et al 10956902 - (D) HUGHES 112(2)/102 Jackson Walker (Trimble) FERNANDEZ RIVAS, OMAR F

exxon research, jolly

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Bellamkonda 11862158 - (D) NAPPI 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Hossein-Zadeh et al 12359897 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 MILSTEIN ZHANG & WU LLC LI, SHI K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Cataline et al 11717057 - (D) LORIN 103 JPMorgan Chase/Hunton & Williams LLP KHATTAR, RAJESH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Beaton 12322644 - (D) BAER 103 103 Jeffrey Beaton ZUBERI, MOHAMMED H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Sylvain 11960317 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 RPX Clearinghouse, LLC FABBRI, ANTHONY E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Blucher 11623009 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2) 41.50 112(2) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. BRADEN, SHAWN M

There are no per se rules of indefiniteness. See, e.g., Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (distinguishing In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566 (CCPA 1949) (holding a claim including the same term, “substantially,” indefinite); noting the presumption of validity of the claims of an issued patent as compared to those of an application). ...

In cases involving claims that recite terms of degree, those claims are generally held definite only so long as there is something in the Specification to enable one skilled in the art to determine the degree required. Often this may be set forth in terms of achieving a particular result. See, e.g., Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d at 1381 (“Whether there is a ‘substantial absence of slug flow’ therefore can be determined with reference to whether reactor efficiency is materially affected.”).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Lashley 10941542 - (D) ZADO 103 LIEBERMAN & BRANDSDORFER, LLC ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D

2427 Ex Parte Kandekar et al 12232805 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Concert Technology Corporation LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12199602 - (D) HUME 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Mann et al 11882708 - (D) FETTING 103 JPMorgan Chase/Hunton & Williams LLP WU, RUTAO

CSDM Ex Parte Stoll 12386487 - (D) FETTING 103 Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P GOODBODY, JOAN T

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex parte HUBBELL INCORPORATED Appellant Ex Parte Shotey et al  7,119,277 11/257,888 90012087 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Hubbell) For Third Party Requester: O’SHEA GETZ PC WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original PATEL, DHIRUBHAI R

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 ENGINEERED PLASTICS, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. ADA SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent Ex Parte 8028491 et al 11/822,500 95001775 - (R) SONG 103 Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC For Third Party Requester: FOLEY HOAG, LLP original BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP DAWSON, GLENN K original NGUYEN, NINH H

kalman

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Goldman 12134532 - (D) STEPINA 112(1)/103 112(2)/103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A.-General HERRING, BRENT W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Sykes et al 11950173 - (D) HARLOW 102/103 Andrus, Sceales, Starke & Sawall, LLP OGUNBIYI, OLUWATOSIN A

“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject [application] teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly ‘prior art,’ it is only necessary that the claims under attack . . . ‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference.” Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Staehler et al 12284679 - (D) HILL 103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. COLEY, ZADE JAMES