1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Celis 10/478,179 McCOLLUM 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER XIE, XIAOZHEN
Ex Parte Gunstream et al 11/270,841 GREEN Opinion Dissenting and Concurring FREDMAN 102(b) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION C/O INTELLEVATE EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Hass et al 10/476,309 SMITH 103(a)/ nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
Ex Parte Lubomirsky et al 11/043,442 TIMM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
Ex Parte Stenzel et al 10/523,029 TIMM 103(a)/ nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUDSTADT, P.C. EXAMINER RUMP, RICHARD M
See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (an applicant may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range throughout the entire claimed range); In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 958-59 (CCPA 1960) (The showing must also present enough data points within the prior art range, but outside the claimed range, to establish that the unexpected property does not occur outside the claimed range); and In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (The "difference in results" must be established as being between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art.).
Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2144.05
Hill, In re, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)
Baxter, In re, 656 F.2d 679, 210 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
Ex Parte Uhlig et al 10/936,708 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER HIGGINS, GERARD T
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/912,499 THOMAS 103(a) IBM CORPORATION-AUSTIN (JVL) C/O VAN LEEUWEN & VAN LEEUWEN EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Bremer et al 10/537,878 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR M
Ex Parte Vaupotic et al 10/973,429 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER COWAN, EUEL K
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ruckmann et al 11/121,071 LEE Opinion concurring TIERNEY 102(b) JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
A claim term that does not use “means” triggers the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply, but the presumption is rebutted by a showing that the claim element recites a function without also reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1395, 1401 (BPAI 2009) (precedential). The generic terms “mechanism,” “means,” “element,” and “device,” typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Electronics For Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Sanada v. Reynolds, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1459, 1462 (BPAI 2003). Also, when a claim uses the term “means” to describe a limitation, a presumption exists that the inventors used the term to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and the presumption can be rebutted when the same claim recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function in its entirety. Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1401.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ackerman et al 10/541,307 PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VALENROD, YEVGENY
Ex Parte Neu 10/704,936 SCHEINER 103(a) SALIWANCHIK LLOYD & SALIWANCHIK EXAMINER KOSAR, ANDREW D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Burazin et al 11/274,106 TIMM 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN
Ex Parte Nerenberg 10/897,468 COLAIANNI 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
It is well settled that Appellant has the burden of showing that the additional ingredient taught by the prior art reference materially affects the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 874 (CCPA 1964).
De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Pilu et al 10/460,675 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Yurt et al 10/291,326 HAIRSTON 103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, RUEBEN M
Ex Parte Italiano et al 10/462,215 BARRETT 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SHINGLES, KRISTIE D
Ex Parte Jain et al 09/877,820 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Neu 10/704,936 SCHEINER 103(a) SALIWANCHIK LLOYD & SALIWANCHIK EXAMINER KOSAR, ANDREW D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Burazin et al 11/274,106 TIMM 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN
Ex Parte Nerenberg 10/897,468 COLAIANNI 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
It is well settled that Appellant has the burden of showing that the additional ingredient taught by the prior art reference materially affects the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 874 (CCPA 1964).
De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Pilu et al 10/460,675 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Yurt et al 10/291,326 HAIRSTON 103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, RUEBEN M
Ex Parte Italiano et al 10/462,215 BARRETT 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SHINGLES, KRISTIE D
Ex Parte Jain et al 09/877,820 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Hammond 11/201,828 HAIRSTON 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD EXAMINER GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lambino et al 11/113,937 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PHILLIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER
Ex Parte Lee et al 10/958,655 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
REEXAMINATION
inter partes
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ADVANCED TREATMENT SCIENCES, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,237 7,105,091 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
ex parte
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte SAMSUNG DISPLAY DEVICES CO., LTD. 90/006,572 6,251,537 DELMENDO 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) STEIN MCEWEN, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D
No comments :
Post a Comment