REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte DeHamer et al 10/677,000 BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/102(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: VO, TED T
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chiu et al 11/229,188 HOFF 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
Examiner Name:
WRIGHT, TUCKER J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Goclowski 10/722,662 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAMBERT & ASSOCIATES
Examiner Name:
MISIASZEK, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Doaga et al 10/767,407 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY
Examiner Name:
MOSSER, ROBERT E
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ludwig et al 10/874,027 WARREN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Examiner Name:
WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Wilkerson 11/034,659 HAIRSTON 103(a) MEHRMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
Examiner Name:
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte West 11/487,456 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) WILEY REIN LLP
Examiner Name:
MILLER, WILLIAM L
See Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (absent a showing of long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (the mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem).
Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05
Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2107.01, 2164.03, 2164.01(a), 2164.04, 2164.05(a), 2164.06(b), 2164.08
See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (evidence related solely to the number of units sold without providing any indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in the relevant market provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any).
Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145
See Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Cntrls. Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 317 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (alleged copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other manufacturer has not expended great effort to develop its own solution); Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., a Div. of DEC Int’l, Inc., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of copying found particularly persuasive where copyist had itself attempted for a substantial length of time to design a similar device, and failed). Further, a showing of copying requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . .716.03(b), 716.06, 2141.01(a)
Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.06
Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Crawley et al 10/931,025 BARRETT 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, TU MINH
Ex Parte Hixon et al 10/718,852 PATE III 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC
Examiner Name:
CHOI, STEPHEN
Evidence of number of units sold, volumes of dollar sales, or proof of existing market share, quite simply does not indicate anything with regard to the reasons for commercial success. See, e.g., Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (number of units sold and profit per unit not enough); or Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of dollar sales alone insufficient); or Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (number of units sold not enough). Such evidence must be placed in perspective by demonstrating that the subject invention displaces prior art devices or surpasses the volumes sales of prior art devices. See Vandenburg v. Dairy Equip., 740 F.2d at 1567.
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03
Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 224 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.06
Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art-recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. In particular, the evidence must show that the need was a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depend on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Gershon, 372 F.2d at 538. Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757,768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[Olnce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved.") Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA 1971). "[Llong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Cornrn'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Gershon, In re, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(c), 716.04
Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . 716.04
Cavanagh, In re, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04
Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(d), 716.04
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04
Ex Parte Passke et al 11/476,607 PATE III 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
Examiner Name:
KAVANAUGH, JOHN T
VACATED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Elkins et al 10/853,732 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name:
KIM, EUNHEE
The subject matter of claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. § 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. Moreover, our reviewing court has stated that “[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This latter case held that claims directed to a “paradigm” are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as representing an abstract idea. Thus, a “signal” cannot be patentable subject matter because it is not within any of the four categories. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357. Laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185. A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). The unpatentability of abstract ideas was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).
Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01
Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN PART and REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1722
Ex parte COLORLAB COSMETICS, INC., Appellant 90/008,988 6,402,120 DELMENDO 112(1)/305/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOSEPH P. MEHRLE SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
Examiner Name:
BRUMBACK, BRENDA G
A “claim is enlarged if it includes within its scope any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01
DENIED-IN-PART; GRANTED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte HARRY FISCH, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,024 6,391,920
SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner Ira J. Schaefer HOGAN & HARTSON LLP Third Party Requester David W. Clough, Ph.D. HOWREY LLP
Examiner Name:
PONNALURI, PADMASHRI
Lack of novelty is the ultimate of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).
AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2101
Ex parte THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEDIA GROUP, LTD. 90/007,578 4,925,294 EASTHOM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) UNIPAT.ORG Third Party Requestor: White & Case, LLP
See, e.g., Techradium, Inc. Blackboard Connect Inc., 2009 WL 1152985 *4 n. 5 (E.D. Tex. 2009)(“The Court agrees with Blackboard that Wikipedia disclaims any validity of the content listed on its website, and is therefore not a reliable source of technical information.”)
But see, U.S. v. Crooker, 608 F.3d 94, 95 n.1 (1st Cir. 2010) (using Wikipedia as source for definition); Lantz v. C.I.R., 607 F.3d 470, 482-83 (7th Cir. 2010) (Wikipedia as source for longest human lifespan).
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Foth et al
Ex Parte Schydlowsky
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Crawley et al
Ex Parte Geiger
Ex Parte Krebs
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Anderson et al
Ex Parte Barelmann et al
Ex Parte Britz et al
Ex Parte Chang et al
Ex Parte Christensen et al
Ex Parte Clementz et al
Ex Parte Davis
Ex Parte Downs
Ex Parte Ferguson
Ex Parte Finkelshtain et al
Ex Parte Hsu et al
Ex Parte Jenkins et al
Ex Parte Lam et al
Ex Parte Lemaire et al
Ex Parte Martinez
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al
Ex Parte Otis et al
Ex Parte Vienneau et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Lincir
Ex Parte Putnam et al
No comments :
Post a Comment