Monday September 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wei et al 10/718,997 McCOLLUM 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Liu 10/667,883 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Lee et al 10/612,954 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) MANELLI DENISON & SELTER EXAMINER LE, LANA N

Ex Parte Rykowski et al 10/455,146 HAHN 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

Ex Parte Rykowski et al 10/653,559 HAHN 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER AMADIZ, RODNEY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Murray 10/937,561 GAUDETTE 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE

The Federal Circuit has interpreted the term “integrally formed” in an apparatus claim as a structural limitation. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055-57 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In In re Morris, the court noted that the CCPA “had on several prior occasions interpreted the term ‘integral’ to cover more that [sic, than] a unitary construction” where the record did not provide a clear basis for limiting the term to a one piece construction, 127 F.3d at 1055-56 (citations omitted), and likewise declined to interpret the phrase “integrally formed” as limited to a single piece, inseparable structure:

The problem in this case is that the appellants failed to make their intended meaning explicitly clear. Even though the appellants implore us to interpret the claims in light of the specification, the specification fails to set forth the definition sought by the appellants. Nowhere in the technical description of the invention does the application use or define the phrase “integrally formed.” The phrase briefly appears in the “Summary of the Invention” and again in a description of the “advantages of the present invention.” In neither case is a drawing referenced or a precise definition given.

127 F.3d at 1056.

See also, Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys., 887 F.2d 1070, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (nothing of record limited “integral” to mean “of one-piece” construction).”)

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

See In re Winslow, 365 F.2d 1017, 1020 (CCPA 1966) (“We think the proper way to apply the 103 obviousness test to a case like this is to first picture the inventor as working in his shop with the prior art references—which he is presumed to know—hanging on the walls around him. . . . Section 103 requires us to presume full knowledge by the inventor of the prior art in the field of his endeavor.”).

Ex Parte Thiel 10/841,986 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Itwaru 10/081,265 FETTING 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C.
EXAMINER AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

Ex Parte Kobeh et al 10/673,431 LORIN 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER KAZIMI, HANI M

Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.").

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2876
Ex parte ScriptPro LLC, Patent Owner 90/007,995 6,155,485 ROBERTSON 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER LE, THIEN MINH

Any initial obviousness determination is reconsidered anew in view of the proffered evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052 (CCPA 1976); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 945 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ex Parte Quist, No. 2008-001183, at 10-11 (BPAI June 2, 2010) (Precedential)

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04

Eli Lilly, In re, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . .716.01(d), 716.02(b),716.02(c), 2142, 2144, 2144.08

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Willis

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Abdulrazik
Ex Parte Coolidge et al
Ex Parte Detweiler et al
Ex Parte Gruender
Ex Parte Hobbs et al
Ex Parte Jung et al
Ex Parte Lebing et al
Ex Parte Ohtsuki
Ex Parte Stahlmann et al
Ex Parte STEELE et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Pak et al

REMAND

Ex Parte Norden et al