REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Laurie 10/898,546 ADAMS 101/112(1)/103(a) MONSANTO COMPANY EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL
Ex Parte Singh et al 11/539,013 ADAMS 112(1) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER NWAONICHA, CHUKWUMA O
Ex Parte Studin 10/829,316 SCHEINER 103(a) STUART D. FRENKEL EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ahmed et al 10/211,162 SMITH 103(a)/102(e) JULIE POST H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M
Ex Parte McCormick 11/742,647 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO
Ex Parte Roskam et al 10/754,224 SMITH 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
“[T]he analysis that ‘should be made explicit’ refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis.” Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Ex Parte Ortega et al 11/166,029 NAGUMO 112(2)/102(b) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER MRUK, BRIAN P
As Judge Rich, writing for the predecessor to our reviewing court wrote nearly half a century ago, “[f]rom the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing.” In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (CCPA 1963).
Papesch, In re, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) . . . . .716.02(a), 2141.02, 2144.08, 2144.09
Ex Parte Urban et al 11/206,912 SMITH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER AND NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHAN, SING P.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chatterjee et al 11/052,216 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M
Ex Parte Taylor 10/136,604 BARRY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
For example, a claim is indefinite "where the language 'said lever' appears in a dependent claim where no such 'lever' has been previously recited . . . ." Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (BPAI 1987).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Powers et al 10/387,148 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXAMINER MILLS, DONALD L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Uberti et al 10/469,835 ADAMS Opinion Concurring-in-part and Dissenting-in-part JEFFREY N. FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) DAWN MACPHERSON AT BIOMEASURE INC. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ban et al 11/306,780 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER CERULLO, JEREMY S
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gustave et al 10/970,137 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. EXAMINER HO, HUY C
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Au et al 10/751,742 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DUNHAM, JASON B
Ex Parte Butler et al 10/106,461 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG
Ex Parte Collins et al 11/033,533 TIERNEY 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY – MD 0750 EXAMINER ING, MATTHEW W
Ex Parte Hill et al 11/057,115 LORIN 103(a) MARK A. LITMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M
Ex Parte Ryan et al 10/707,5 10 FETTING 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S
Ex Parte Subramanian et al 10/001,772 LORIN 103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C. EXAMINER
ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.
Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1614
Ex parte J-MED PHARMACEUTICALS Appellant & Patent Owner 90/008,111 6,270,796 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: FROMMER, LAWRENCE & HAUG FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STEVEN J. HULTQUIST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/TECHNOLOGY LAW EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER TRAVERS, R
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2601
Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/006,977 and 90/007,058 (merged) 5,259,023 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 BROWN, THOMAS
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Burkhart et al
Ex Parte Chinner et al
Ex Parte Machhammer et al
Ex Parte Serra et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Parker
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Blagg et al
Ex Parte Case et al
Ex Parte Cottrell et al
Ex Parte Cuevas et al
Ex Parte Gahm et al
Ex Parte Elisabettini et al
Ex Parte Fleming et al
Ex Parte Gardner
Ex Parte Gessner et al
Ex Parte Gorissen
Ex Parte Gothoskar et al
Ex Parte Jain
Ex Parte Masuda et al
Ex Parte Miyake et al
Ex Parte Okamoto et al
Ex Parte Ostgaard et al
Ex Parte Post et al
Ex Parte Tobin et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Pederson et al
No comments :
Post a Comment