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
No comments :
Post a Comment