Wednesday August 18, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Seul 10/943,760 PRATS 103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL
Examiner Name: RIGGS II, LARRY D

In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007), the Supreme Court emphasized “an expansive and flexible approach” to the obviousness question, but nonetheless reaffirmed that

it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.

Id. at 418-419 (emphasis added); see also id. at 418 (requiring a determination of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”) (emphasis added).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Graupner et al 10/936,893 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP
Examiner Name: NAGPAUL, JYOTI

Ex Parte Qu et al 11/015,928 NAGUMO 103(a) JONES & SMITH , LLP
Examiner Name: TOSCANO, ALICIA

Ex Parte Reising 11/064,394 TIMM 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
Examiner Name: KRUER, KEVIN R

Ex Parte Shah 10/815,282 KRATZ 103(a) tc INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY / TECHNOLOGY
LAW
Examiner Name: TRAN, THAO T

Ex Parte Tanaka 10/674,169 TIMM 103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C.
Examiner Name: HUSON, MONICA ANNE

Ex Parte Turner et al 10/877,264 OWENS 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750
Examiner Name: WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Sarma 10/260,834 SAADAT 102(e) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
Examiner Name: BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Holms et al 11/071,827 SILVERBERG 103(a) JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD.
Examiner Name: VALENTI, ANDREA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Belson 11/129,168 SILVERBERG 102(b) INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC.
Examiner Name: KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lawson 11/477,980 SIU 112(2)/102(b) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens
Examiner Name: THAI, TUAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Kubo et al 10/953,364 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
Examiner Name: BERHANU, SAMUEL

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2132
Ex parte A. JAMES SMITH, JR. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,078 6,571,336 TURNER 102(e) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
Examiner Name: CHOI, WOO H

Determination of a priority date is purely a question of law if the facts underlying that determination are undisputed. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., 525 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, determination whether a priority document contains sufficient disclosure to comply with the written description aspect of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is a question of fact. Waldemar Link v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558 (Fed.Cir.1994); Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

...

Prosecution history can also be relevant to claim interpretation. See Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A]ny interpretation that is provided or disavowed in the prosecution history also shapes the claim scope.”); see also Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[P]rosecution history . . . cannot be used to limit the scope of a claim unless the applicant took a position before the PTO that would lead a competitor to believe that the applicant had disavowed coverage of the relevant subject matter.”).

An applicant’s statement to the examiner is a compelling disclaimer of scope such that a patent may not be entitled to an earlier priority date. Bradford, 603 F.3d at 1269 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We take the patentee at its word and will not construe the scope of ... [a] patent's claims more broadly than the patentee itself clearly envisioned.”)). That is because arguments made to persuade an examiner to allow an application trump an ambiguous disclosure that otherwise might have sufficed to obtain an earlier priority date. See Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that any argument made to convince the examiner of the patentability of the claimed invention “limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance”).

Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 31 USPQ2d 1855 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . 706.03(o)

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 48 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Miller et al
Ex Parte Webb

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Brown et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Arntzen et al
Ex Parte Borgaonkar et al
Ex Parte Dale et al
Ex Parte DeStefano et al
Ex Parte Edwards et al
Ex Parte Fine et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Panz et al
Ex Parte Sulm et al
Ex Parte Tessnow et al
Ex Parte Weiss