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