REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Li et al 11/125,297 SCHEINER 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S
Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/274,887 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP ELAN PHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMIT EXAMINER GREENE, IVAN A
Ex Parte Marquart et al 11/099,854 SCHEINER 103(a) TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS & PHILLIPS, L.L.P EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A
Ex Parte Niklason et al 10/388,588 SPIEGEL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, QUANG
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fuller et al 10/978,981 HANLON 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
Ex Parte Shannon et al 10/823,371 KRATZ 103(a) MOSER IP LAW GROUP / APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Simelius et al 10/645,687 HUGHES 103(a) Harrington & Smith, PC EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Wilson et al 10/330,944 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) WILLIAM M. LEE, JR.BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER WONG, WARNER
Ex Parte Harter et al 10/444,468 COURTENAY 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED
Ex Parte Houldsworth 10/218,364 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LIN, JASON K
Ex Parte Jaye 10/151,794 SAADAT 103(a) BEH INVESTMENTS LLC EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q
Ex Parte Kwan 10/287,287 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Brake Hughes PLC C/O Intellevate EXAMINER CHOU, ALBERT T
Ex Parte Shanbhag 10/289,767 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER WILSON, ROBERT W
On the record before us, addressing the Examiner’s provisional rejections would be premature. See Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Seo 10/981,533 HAIRSTON 103(a) STANZIONE & KIM, LLP EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P
Ex Parte Bishop et al 10/719,476 HAIRSTON 103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT EXAMINER DEANE JR, WILLIAM J
Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/806,980 SAADAT 103(a) CRAIN, CATON & JAMES EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU K
Ex Parte Soto et al 10/886,514 HAIRSTON 103(a) Alexander Soto EXAMINER LI, SHI K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoganandan et al 11/020,998 KRIVAK 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Peoples 11/448,936 McCARTHY 103(a) MYRON AMER P.C. EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Schwemberger et al 11/206,298 McCARTHY 102(b) WELSH & FLAXMAN LLC EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
Ex Parte Tornier 10/189,630 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW
Ex Parte Bourne et al 10/434,526 McCARTHY 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Weers et al 10/982,191 SCHEINER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NOVARTIS EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
ENABLEMENT
[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. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).
[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement. Id. at 224.
In other words, “the PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention . . . this includes, of course, providing sufficient reasons for doubting any assertions in the specification as to the scope of enablement.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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
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
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hesdahl et al 10/874,149 MARTIN 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1636
Ex parte COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,247 90/008,096 6,573,099 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR APPELLANT: GARY J. GERSHIK COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ERICH E. VEITENHEIMER COOLEY GODWARD, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1773
HITACHI METALS, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. SENJU METAL INDUSTRY CO., LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,105 6,387,499 BOALICK 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. Third Party Requester: JIA WEI HUANG JC PATENTS EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER KILIMAN, LESZEK B
In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962) (Prior art reference disclosing limited genus of 20 compounds rendered every species within the genus anticipated).
Petering, In re, 301 F.2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . 2131.02, 2131.03, 2144.08
Therefore, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)
However, a patentability determination of a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2604
Ex parte LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/008,721 4,439,759 SIU 102(e) For Patent Owner: Lucent Technologies, Inc. For Third Party Requester: Kenneth L. Cage McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER CURTIS, MARSHALL M
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Gast et al
Ex Parte Hsiun et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Mukherjee et al
Ex Parte Pfrengle et al
Ex Parte Zhang et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Ackerman et al
Ex Parte Bangalore et al
Ex Parte Baranczyk et al
Ex Parte Barker
Ex Parte Boser
Ex Parte Chinchwadkar et al
Ex Parte Conti
Ex Parte Delbarre
Ex Parte Duerbaum et al
Ex Parte Fahey et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Graf et al
Ex Parte Harvin et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hillis et al
Ex Parte Hung et al
Ex Parte Isham et al
Ex Parte Le
Ex Parte Lee
Ex Parte Manchala
Ex Parte Nakura et al
Ex Parte Peterson
Ex Parte Rouse et al
Ex Parte Rovira
Ex Parte Seibert
Ex Parte Sen et al
Ex Parte Shang
Ex Parte Segletes et al
Ex Parte Snyder et al
Ex Parte Terrell et al
Ex Parte Thomas et al
Ex Parte Vanderheyden et al
Ex Parte Weber
Ex Parte Wicker
Ex Parte Yao
REHEARING
Ex Parte Glickman et al
Ex Parte Tomioka et al
REMAND
Ex Parte Simrell
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday September 29, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fischer et al 11/030,244 SPIEGEL 103(a) BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dabouineau 10/889,116 SMITH 103(a) WILLIAM F. KOLALOWSKI, LLL DYKEMA GOSSETT PPLC EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T
Ex Parte Hammond 11/162,058 FRANKLIN 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S
Ex Parte Lee et al 11/326,895 COLAIANNI 103(a) LARSEN NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K
Ex Parte Leucht et al 10/538,871 COLAIANNI 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER VO, HAI
Ex Parte Ludtke et al 10/548,723 GARRIS 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, KEVIN M
Ex Parte Miura et al 10/503,952 TIMM 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER VERDERAME, ANNA L
Ex Parte Sakaki et al 11/077,024 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH, STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER JOHNSTONE, ADRIENNE C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dalakuras et al 10/898,302 DANG 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER REHMAN, MOHAMMED H
Ex Parte Bartek et al 10/754,375 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP Steven M. Greenberg EXAMINER ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
Ex Parte Johnson et al 09/845,839 DANG 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Abbott 10/046,058 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ylitalo 10/209,195 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER VUONG, QUOCHIEN B
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Furukawa et al 10/703,355 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Guernsey 11/160,224 PATE III 102(b) LAITRAM, L.L.C. EXAMINER PRAKASAM, RAMYA G
Ex Parte Wavering et al 10/929,318 PATE III 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Anstey et al 10/434,048 PATE III 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER YU, MICKEY
Ex Parte Carlson et al 11/168,614 McCARTHY 102(a)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER MORALES, JON ERIC C
Ex Parte Debaes et al 11/174,834 PATE III 102(b) JAMES C. WRAY EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
Ex Parte Perry et al 11/261,110 KERINS 102(e)/103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN
Ex Parte Sanders et al 11/095,947 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
Ex Parte Wood et al 10/804,458 PATE III 103(a) OBER/KALER c/o Royal W. Craig EXAMINER PICKETT, JOHN G
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Madsen et al 10/012,723 C. THOMAS 103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G
Ex Parte Hillier et al 11/013,149 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Turley et al 11/261,109 DIXON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARKER, AUTUMN H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kelly et al 10/646,685 SCHAFER 103(a)/112(1) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, LLP EXAMINER BROADHEAD, BRIAN J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dragoo et al 11/349,502 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
Ex Parte Santini et al 10/783,897 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
Furthermore, we must note where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a “minor capacity,” there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
Hoch, In re, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970) . . . . 706.02(j), 1207.03, 2144.08
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3616
ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,012 90/008,351 6,942,248 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requester: BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON, & LIONE EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER TO, TOAN C
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2742
Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/006,976 90/007,092 90/007,884 5,255,309 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DONALD E. STOUT, ESQ. ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3724
PROULX MANUFACTURING, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of KWIK PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,139 6,735,874 DELMENDO FOR PATENT OWNER: HESPOS & PORCO LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: RICHARD E. LYON, JR. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WATTS, DOUGLAS D
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2100
SIGNATURE SYSTEMS, LLC Requester, Respondent v. AD. KEN CORP. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,043 6,721,743 TURNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) APPELLANT / PATENT OWNER: STAAS AND HALSEY LLP RESPONDENT / THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: BARKUME & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER WASSUM, LUKE S original EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3306
Ex parte SMITHS MEDICAL ASD, INC., Appellant & Patent Owner 90/010,350 5,562,631 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER YASKO JR, JOHN D
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Lang
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Benantar
Ex Parte Moore et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Bosch et al
Ex Parte Uno et al
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Fischer et al 11/030,244 SPIEGEL 103(a) BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dabouineau 10/889,116 SMITH 103(a) WILLIAM F. KOLALOWSKI, LLL DYKEMA GOSSETT PPLC EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T
Ex Parte Hammond 11/162,058 FRANKLIN 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S
Ex Parte Lee et al 11/326,895 COLAIANNI 103(a) LARSEN NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K
Ex Parte Leucht et al 10/538,871 COLAIANNI 103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER VO, HAI
Ex Parte Ludtke et al 10/548,723 GARRIS 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, KEVIN M
Ex Parte Miura et al 10/503,952 TIMM 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER VERDERAME, ANNA L
Ex Parte Sakaki et al 11/077,024 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH, STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER JOHNSTONE, ADRIENNE C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dalakuras et al 10/898,302 DANG 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER REHMAN, MOHAMMED H
Ex Parte Bartek et al 10/754,375 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP Steven M. Greenberg EXAMINER ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
Ex Parte Johnson et al 09/845,839 DANG 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Abbott 10/046,058 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ylitalo 10/209,195 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER VUONG, QUOCHIEN B
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Furukawa et al 10/703,355 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Guernsey 11/160,224 PATE III 102(b) LAITRAM, L.L.C. EXAMINER PRAKASAM, RAMYA G
Ex Parte Wavering et al 10/929,318 PATE III 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Anstey et al 10/434,048 PATE III 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER YU, MICKEY
Ex Parte Carlson et al 11/168,614 McCARTHY 102(a)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER MORALES, JON ERIC C
Ex Parte Debaes et al 11/174,834 PATE III 102(b) JAMES C. WRAY EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H
Ex Parte Perry et al 11/261,110 KERINS 102(e)/103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN
Ex Parte Sanders et al 11/095,947 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
Ex Parte Wood et al 10/804,458 PATE III 103(a) OBER/KALER c/o Royal W. Craig EXAMINER PICKETT, JOHN G
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Madsen et al 10/012,723 C. THOMAS 103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G
Ex Parte Hillier et al 11/013,149 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Turley et al 11/261,109 DIXON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARKER, AUTUMN H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kelly et al 10/646,685 SCHAFER 103(a)/112(1) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, LLP EXAMINER BROADHEAD, BRIAN J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dragoo et al 11/349,502 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
Ex Parte Santini et al 10/783,897 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
Furthermore, we must note where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a “minor capacity,” there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
Hoch, In re, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970) . . . . 706.02(j), 1207.03, 2144.08
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3616
ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,012 90/008,351 6,942,248 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requester: BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON, & LIONE EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER TO, TOAN C
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2742
Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/006,976 90/007,092 90/007,884 5,255,309 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DONALD E. STOUT, ESQ. ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3724
PROULX MANUFACTURING, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of KWIK PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,139 6,735,874 DELMENDO FOR PATENT OWNER: HESPOS & PORCO LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: RICHARD E. LYON, JR. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WATTS, DOUGLAS D
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2100
SIGNATURE SYSTEMS, LLC Requester, Respondent v. AD. KEN CORP. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,043 6,721,743 TURNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) APPELLANT / PATENT OWNER: STAAS AND HALSEY LLP RESPONDENT / THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: BARKUME & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER WASSUM, LUKE S original EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3306
Ex parte SMITHS MEDICAL ASD, INC., Appellant & Patent Owner 90/010,350 5,562,631 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER YASKO JR, JOHN D
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Lang
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Benantar
Ex Parte Moore et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Bosch et al
Ex Parte Uno et al
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday September 28, 2010
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Friedmann et al 10/262,470 FRANKLIN 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORP. EXAMINER TOLBOT, BRIAN K
Ex Parte Wu et al 11/078,983 PAK 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L
Ex Parte Zabetakis et al 10/956,593 HANLON 112(1)/103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
Ex Parte Medower et al 10/056,927 SMITH 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER OSELE, MARK A
Ex Parte McCormack et al 10/646,979 COLAIANNI 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gurney et al 10/335,018 DIXON 103(a) CAREY, RODREGUEZ, GREENBURG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
Claim Interpretation
The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Baumeister et al 10/624,353 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRISTENSON, SCOTT B
Ex Parte Xu et al 10/346,067 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
Ex Parte Yoshida 10/057,364 NAPPI 103(a) FRISHAUF, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK, PC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Narusawa 11/019,631 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X
Ex Parte Fredlund et al 10/397,825 NAPPI 103(a) MILTON S. SALES EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAU H
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Rumsey et al 10/421,079 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER TRINH, HOA B
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hirschenberger et al 10/284,023 CRAWFORD 102(b) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V
Ex Parte Miller et al 10/078,687 CRAWFORD 103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY
As such, in our view, the Examiner relied on hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. Our reviewing court has said, “[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.” W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). It is essential that "the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught at trial about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made . . . to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art." Id.
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
Ex Parte Underwood et al 11/533,206 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Noe et al 10/793,472 BAHR 102(b) KF ROSS, PC EXAMINER HAMILTON, ISAAC N
Thus, for the term "immediately upstream" to mean that the sensor is merely between the mill and the trimming head, one would have to essentially ignore the term because a sensor upstream of the hot rolled mill will not be able to measure the edges and width of the not-yet-formed strip. See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim"); Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous).
Ex Parte Wessling, et al 10/808,677 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER ALI, MOHAMMAD M
We are guided by the principle that the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with sufficient specificity in order to constitute an anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the Atofina case, neither a disclosure of a broad range of 100-500° C., nor a disclosure of a narrower preferred range of 150-350° C., was found to anticipate a claimed range of 330-450° C., despite the former range fully encompassing the claimed range and the latter range having a degree of overlap with the claimed range. Id. The Federal Circuit noted, in this respect, that the disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points. Id.
Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Yingst et al 11/013,813 CRAWFORD 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS, LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A
The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967).
Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115
Ex Parte Courson et al 10/673,050 LORIN 112(1)/112(2)/101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M
In re Rundell, 18 CCPA 1290, 48 F.2d 958, 9 USPQ 220[, 221] [“Appellant argues that his rejected claims rest upon an automatic mechanism. The mere statement that a device is to be operated automatically instead of by hand, without a claim specifying any particular automatic mechanism, is not the statement of an invention. Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195; In re Gill, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 700, 36 F. (2d) 128.”]” In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hori et al 10/148,178 FETTING 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER I AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Appellant & Patent Owner 90/007,626 5,916,912 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR THE APPELLANT: BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS, LLP FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HOFFMAN, WASSON & GILTER, PC EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER COOK, REBECCA
The intent or recognition that a method achieves a stated result does not change how the method is carried out. See also Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622, 2007 WL 5211675 (BPAI, Mar. 27, 2007) (Informative Opinion).
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Altwies et al
Ex Parte Begemann et al
Ex Parte Chandhoke et al
Ex Parte Laughlin
Ex Parte Schroeder et al
Ex Parte Wu et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Birmiwal et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Armangau
Ex Parte Arning et al
Ex Parte Babutzka et al
Ex Parte Bergman et al
Ex Parte Berstis et al
Ex Parte Chieu et al
Ex Parte Conrad et al
Ex Parte Cooper
Ex Parte Crichton et al
Ex Parte Cumpson et al
Ex Parte Doi et al
Ex Parte Doisaki et al
Ex Parte Eckert et al
Ex Parte Emery
Ex Parte Ghiware et al
Ex Parte Hall-Goulle et al
Ex Parte Imhof et al
Ex Parte Jeon et al
Ex Parte Kaisheva et al
Ex Parte Keresman et al
Ex Parte Klinedinst et al
Ex Parte Malkamaki et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Mikami
Ex Parte Patrick
Ex Parte Robertson et al
Ex Parte Robinson et al
Ex Parte Sander
Ex Parte Scheer
Ex Parte Sen et al
Ex Parte Shaheen et al
Ex Parte Sheppard
Ex Parte Thompson et al
Ex Parte Turgeon
Ex Parte Wilson
Ex Parte Xu et al
Ex Parte Zehner et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Vega
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Friedmann et al 10/262,470 FRANKLIN 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORP. EXAMINER TOLBOT, BRIAN K
Ex Parte Wu et al 11/078,983 PAK 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L
Ex Parte Zabetakis et al 10/956,593 HANLON 112(1)/103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
Ex Parte Medower et al 10/056,927 SMITH 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER OSELE, MARK A
Ex Parte McCormack et al 10/646,979 COLAIANNI 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gurney et al 10/335,018 DIXON 103(a) CAREY, RODREGUEZ, GREENBURG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
Claim Interpretation
The claim construction analysis begins with the words of the claim. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Baumeister et al 10/624,353 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRISTENSON, SCOTT B
Ex Parte Xu et al 10/346,067 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
Ex Parte Yoshida 10/057,364 NAPPI 103(a) FRISHAUF, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK, PC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Narusawa 11/019,631 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU X
Ex Parte Fredlund et al 10/397,825 NAPPI 103(a) MILTON S. SALES EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAU H
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Rumsey et al 10/421,079 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER TRINH, HOA B
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hirschenberger et al 10/284,023 CRAWFORD 102(b) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V
Ex Parte Miller et al 10/078,687 CRAWFORD 103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY
As such, in our view, the Examiner relied on hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. Our reviewing court has said, “[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.” W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). It is essential that "the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught at trial about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made . . . to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art." Id.
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
Ex Parte Underwood et al 11/533,206 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Noe et al 10/793,472 BAHR 102(b) KF ROSS, PC EXAMINER HAMILTON, ISAAC N
Thus, for the term "immediately upstream" to mean that the sensor is merely between the mill and the trimming head, one would have to essentially ignore the term because a sensor upstream of the hot rolled mill will not be able to measure the edges and width of the not-yet-formed strip. See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim"); Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous).
Ex Parte Wessling, et al 10/808,677 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER ALI, MOHAMMAD M
We are guided by the principle that the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with sufficient specificity in order to constitute an anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the Atofina case, neither a disclosure of a broad range of 100-500° C., nor a disclosure of a narrower preferred range of 150-350° C., was found to anticipate a claimed range of 330-450° C., despite the former range fully encompassing the claimed range and the latter range having a degree of overlap with the claimed range. Id. The Federal Circuit noted, in this respect, that the disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points. Id.
Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp, 441 F.3d 991 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Yingst et al 11/013,813 CRAWFORD 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS, LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A
The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967).
Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115
Ex Parte Courson et al 10/673,050 LORIN 112(1)/112(2)/101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M
In re Rundell, 18 CCPA 1290, 48 F.2d 958, 9 USPQ 220[, 221] [“Appellant argues that his rejected claims rest upon an automatic mechanism. The mere statement that a device is to be operated automatically instead of by hand, without a claim specifying any particular automatic mechanism, is not the statement of an invention. Marchand v. Emken, 132 U. S. 195; In re Gill, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 700, 36 F. (2d) 128.”]” In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hori et al 10/148,178 FETTING 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER I AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Appellant & Patent Owner 90/007,626 5,916,912 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR THE APPELLANT: BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS, LLP FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HOFFMAN, WASSON & GILTER, PC EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER COOK, REBECCA
The intent or recognition that a method achieves a stated result does not change how the method is carried out. See also Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622, 2007 WL 5211675 (BPAI, Mar. 27, 2007) (Informative Opinion).
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Altwies et al
Ex Parte Begemann et al
Ex Parte Chandhoke et al
Ex Parte Laughlin
Ex Parte Schroeder et al
Ex Parte Wu et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Birmiwal et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Armangau
Ex Parte Arning et al
Ex Parte Babutzka et al
Ex Parte Bergman et al
Ex Parte Berstis et al
Ex Parte Chieu et al
Ex Parte Conrad et al
Ex Parte Cooper
Ex Parte Crichton et al
Ex Parte Cumpson et al
Ex Parte Doi et al
Ex Parte Doisaki et al
Ex Parte Eckert et al
Ex Parte Emery
Ex Parte Ghiware et al
Ex Parte Hall-Goulle et al
Ex Parte Imhof et al
Ex Parte Jeon et al
Ex Parte Kaisheva et al
Ex Parte Keresman et al
Ex Parte Klinedinst et al
Ex Parte Malkamaki et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Mikami
Ex Parte Patrick
Ex Parte Robertson et al
Ex Parte Robinson et al
Ex Parte Sander
Ex Parte Scheer
Ex Parte Sen et al
Ex Parte Shaheen et al
Ex Parte Sheppard
Ex Parte Thompson et al
Ex Parte Turgeon
Ex Parte Wilson
Ex Parte Xu et al
Ex Parte Zehner et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Vega
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday September 27, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Tomes et al 10/367,417 McCOLLUM 103(a) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL
Ex Parte Ziegler et al 10/084,676 FREDMAN 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M
“The purpose of claims is not to explain the technology or how it works, but to state the legal boundaries of the patent grant. A claim is not ‘indefinite’ simply because it is hard to understand when viewed without benefit of the specification.” S3 Incorporated v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gehlsen et al 10/835,865 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Oliver 10/724,318 HUGHES 102(e) Hewlett Packard Company EXAMINER VU, THANH T
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte McKenna et al 09/896,921 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, SUMAIYA A
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Masuda et al 10/470,433 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALEY, JOSEPH R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Meier et al 10/964,111 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b) King & Spalding LLP EXAMINER BERHANE, ADOLPH D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brown et al 11/391,758 FISCHETTI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER DANNEMAN, PAUL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kolb 11/565,353 STAICOVICI 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Berndt et al 10/891,798 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(2)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, HEE SOO
“‘[T]he failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite.’ . . . [D]espite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.’” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can also be implied. Id. (holding that the term “anode gel” implicitly provided antecedent basis for a “zinc anode” in the same claim).
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(e)
Ex Parte Chan et al 10/726,766 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER NALVEN, ANDREW L
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rollins et al 10/160,590 HOFF 103(a) MOTOROLA INC EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bray 10/476,257 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P
VACATED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/965,183 THOMAS 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3661
Melvino Technologies, Ltd. Appellant and Patent Owner v. Transworks, Inc. Third Party Requestor 95/000,368 6,748,320 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER LOUIS JACQUES, JACQUES H
REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2202
Ex parte PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner
90/006,563 & 90/006,698 5,335,277 TURNER 102/103 Counsel for Patent Owner: Thomas J. Scott, Jr. Goodwin Procter LLP Counsel for Third Party Requester: A.J. Usher, IV Law Office of A.J. Usher EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER CAIN, DAVID C
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Baker et al
Ex Parte McKenna et al
Ex Parte Posnick
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Hughes
Ex Parte Petryk et al
Ex Parte Vanderby et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Acevedo
Ex Parte Butler
Ex Parte Craig et al
Ex Parte Denvir et al
Ex Parte Eriyama et al
Ex Parte Flores et al
Ex Parte GOUGH
Ex Parte Huang et al
Ex Parte Huynh
Ex Parte Kelkar et al
Ex Parte Li et al
Ex Parte Meurer
Ex Parte Mitjana
Ex Parte Musgrave et al
Ex Parte Nishino et al
Ex Parte Schnittgrund
Ex Parte Tsunogai
Ex Parte Yokoyama et al
Ex Parte Younes
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Tomes et al 10/367,417 McCOLLUM 103(a) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL
Ex Parte Ziegler et al 10/084,676 FREDMAN 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M
“The purpose of claims is not to explain the technology or how it works, but to state the legal boundaries of the patent grant. A claim is not ‘indefinite’ simply because it is hard to understand when viewed without benefit of the specification.” S3 Incorporated v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gehlsen et al 10/835,865 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Oliver 10/724,318 HUGHES 102(e) Hewlett Packard Company EXAMINER VU, THANH T
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte McKenna et al 09/896,921 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, SUMAIYA A
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Masuda et al 10/470,433 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALEY, JOSEPH R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Meier et al 10/964,111 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b) King & Spalding LLP EXAMINER BERHANE, ADOLPH D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brown et al 11/391,758 FISCHETTI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER DANNEMAN, PAUL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kolb 11/565,353 STAICOVICI 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Berndt et al 10/891,798 WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(2)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, HEE SOO
“‘[T]he failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite.’ . . . [D]espite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.’” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can also be implied. Id. (holding that the term “anode gel” implicitly provided antecedent basis for a “zinc anode” in the same claim).
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(e)
Ex Parte Chan et al 10/726,766 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER NALVEN, ANDREW L
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rollins et al 10/160,590 HOFF 103(a) MOTOROLA INC EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bray 10/476,257 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P
VACATED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/965,183 THOMAS 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3661
Melvino Technologies, Ltd. Appellant and Patent Owner v. Transworks, Inc. Third Party Requestor 95/000,368 6,748,320 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER LOUIS JACQUES, JACQUES H
REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2202
Ex parte PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner
90/006,563 & 90/006,698 5,335,277 TURNER 102/103 Counsel for Patent Owner: Thomas J. Scott, Jr. Goodwin Procter LLP Counsel for Third Party Requester: A.J. Usher, IV Law Office of A.J. Usher EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER CAIN, DAVID C
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Baker et al
Ex Parte McKenna et al
Ex Parte Posnick
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Hughes
Ex Parte Petryk et al
Ex Parte Vanderby et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Acevedo
Ex Parte Butler
Ex Parte Craig et al
Ex Parte Denvir et al
Ex Parte Eriyama et al
Ex Parte Flores et al
Ex Parte GOUGH
Ex Parte Huang et al
Ex Parte Huynh
Ex Parte Kelkar et al
Ex Parte Li et al
Ex Parte Meurer
Ex Parte Mitjana
Ex Parte Musgrave et al
Ex Parte Nishino et al
Ex Parte Schnittgrund
Ex Parte Tsunogai
Ex Parte Yokoyama et al
Ex Parte Younes
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday September 24, 2010
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Halasa et al 11/110,025 OWENS 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
Ex Parte Houzvicka et al 10/663,647 TIMM 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
BOYER, RANDY
Ex Parte Ried 10/432,538 FRANKLIN 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Rangarajan et al 10/161,504 HAIRSTON 101 THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (aff’d, Rule 36, Fed. Cir., slip op. 06-1003, June 2006).
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
Ex Parte Stewart 10/055,758 HAIRSTON 103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gross et al 10/843,705 MANTIS MERCADER obviousness type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL
Ex Parte Lee 10/757,626 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Chang et al 09/851,553 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Vijay 10/948,441 SILVERBERG 103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM
Ex Parte Soper et al 11/009,699 LEE 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF RONALD M ANDERSON EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Susilo 10/951,724 SCHEINER 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER HENRY, MICHAEL C
“Whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon underlying factual findings.” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “[i]n patent prosecution, the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue.” Amgen, Inc. v. Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnote and citation omitted). Thus, “a presumption arises that both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled,” which appellants “can then overcome [ ] by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled.” Id.
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 Fed. Cir. 1991). . . . . 2138, 2138.04, 2143.02, 2163, 2163.02, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b), 2411.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Delic et al 10/388,601 STEPHENS 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACHARD COMPANY EXAMINER AL HASHEMI, SANA A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Schmitz 11/063,073 BAHR 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER SPAHN, GAY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kosmyna et al 10/254,121 SILVERBERG Opinion Concurring-in-part and Dissenting-in-part JENNIFER D. BAHR 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER CARTEGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2877
Ex parte APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. & APPLIED MATERIALS ISRAEL, LTD., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,414 6,924,891 TURNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATENT OWNER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Robert Saltzberg MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER NGUYEN, SANG H
Claims in a reexamination proceeding should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, because applicants had the right to amend, whereas in a district court, "claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity." In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 n.*, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing ACH Hosp. Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Brower et al
Ex Parte Gonzalez-Rivas
Ex Parte Grob-Lipski
Ex Parte Tang-Taye
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Crenshaw et al
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall et al
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall
Ex Parte Fronk et al
Ex Parte Hofmann et al
Ex Parte Kesselmayer
Ex Parte Lafon
Ex Parte Llamas et al
Ex Parte OSTGAARD et al
Ex Parte Patek et al
Ex Parte Rubinstenn et al
Ex Parte Salacz et al
Ex Parte Wall et al
Ex Parte Woo et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Patek et al
REMANDED
Ex Parte Daskal
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Halasa et al 11/110,025 OWENS 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
Ex Parte Houzvicka et al 10/663,647 TIMM 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
BOYER, RANDY
Ex Parte Ried 10/432,538 FRANKLIN 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Rangarajan et al 10/161,504 HAIRSTON 101 THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (aff’d, Rule 36, Fed. Cir., slip op. 06-1003, June 2006).
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
Ex Parte Stewart 10/055,758 HAIRSTON 103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gross et al 10/843,705 MANTIS MERCADER obviousness type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL
Ex Parte Lee 10/757,626 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Chang et al 09/851,553 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Vijay 10/948,441 SILVERBERG 103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM
Ex Parte Soper et al 11/009,699 LEE 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF RONALD M ANDERSON EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Susilo 10/951,724 SCHEINER 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER HENRY, MICHAEL C
“Whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law based upon underlying factual findings.” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “[i]n patent prosecution, the examiner is entitled to reject application claims as anticipated by a prior art patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that patent is enabled or whether or not it is the claimed material (as opposed to the unclaimed disclosures) in that patent that are at issue.” Amgen, Inc. v. Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (footnote and citation omitted). Thus, “a presumption arises that both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled,” which appellants “can then overcome [ ] by proving that the relevant disclosures of the prior art patent are not enabled.” Id.
Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 Fed. Cir. 1991). . . . . 2138, 2138.04, 2143.02, 2163, 2163.02, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b), 2411.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Delic et al 10/388,601 STEPHENS 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACHARD COMPANY EXAMINER AL HASHEMI, SANA A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Schmitz 11/063,073 BAHR 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER SPAHN, GAY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kosmyna et al 10/254,121 SILVERBERG Opinion Concurring-in-part and Dissenting-in-part JENNIFER D. BAHR 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER CARTEGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2877
Ex parte APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. & APPLIED MATERIALS ISRAEL, LTD., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,414 6,924,891 TURNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATENT OWNER: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Robert Saltzberg MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER NGUYEN, SANG H
Claims in a reexamination proceeding should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, because applicants had the right to amend, whereas in a district court, "claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity." In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 n.*, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing ACH Hosp. Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Brower et al
Ex Parte Gonzalez-Rivas
Ex Parte Grob-Lipski
Ex Parte Tang-Taye
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Crenshaw et al
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall et al
Ex Parte Fitzharris Wall
Ex Parte Fronk et al
Ex Parte Hofmann et al
Ex Parte Kesselmayer
Ex Parte Lafon
Ex Parte Llamas et al
Ex Parte OSTGAARD et al
Ex Parte Patek et al
Ex Parte Rubinstenn et al
Ex Parte Salacz et al
Ex Parte Wall et al
Ex Parte Woo et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Patek et al
REMANDED
Ex Parte Daskal
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)