Friday October 29, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Thomas et al 11/358,383 ADAMS 102(b) COOK ALEX LTD. EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

Ex Parte Pfrengle et al 10/976,624 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL P. MORRIS BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION EXAMINER O DELL, DAVID K

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Streuer et al 10/273,094 COLAIANNI 103(a) LATHROP & CLARK LLP EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

Ex Parte Heinis et al 10/437,665 OWENS 102(b) JENNIFER D. ADAMSON SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

Ex Parte Ganguli et al 10/811,230SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M

Ex Parte Bruchmann et al 10/510,438 COLAIANNI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Falconer et al 10/813,009 SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) SMART & BIGGAR EXAMINER WENDELL, ANDREW

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/145,472 PATE III 102(b) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU MINH

Ex Parte Zilla et al 10/834,360 TIERNEY 103(a) HAUGEN LAW FIRM EXAMINER SWEET, THOMAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Boertjes et al 10/067,190 HAIRSTON 112(1)/103(a) BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAYMOND, RICHARD L

Ex Parte Heuscher et al 10/545,265 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER TSAI, TSUNG YIN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1621
Ex parte i2 Technologies, US, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,630 5,764,543 SIU 102(b) PATENT OWNER: BOOTH UDALL, PLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Paul A. Harrity Harrity Snyder, LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J

“The determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’ under 35. U.S.C. § 102 involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Id. at 898-99 (citation omitted).

Our reviewing court has explained that a reference is “‘publicly accessible”’ upon a satisfactory showing that: (1) the “document has been disseminated”; or (2) “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).

Klopfenstein, In re, 380 F.3d 1345, 72 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2128.01

Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127

[T]he key inquiry is whether or not the reference was made “publicly accessible” such that “before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . .706.02, 2128.02, 2129, 2145

[T]he key inquiry is whether a reference has been made publicly accessible and there is no “limit . . . to finding something to be a ‘printed publication’ only when there is distribution and/or indexing” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Carter 11/217,005 EXAMINER KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS
Ex Parte Dawson et al 10/401,861 EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
Ex Parte Gao et al 10/900,715 EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P
Ex Parte Leeuwen 10/377,915 EXAMINER MCAVOY, ELLEN M
Ex Parte Prohaska et al 09/858,145 EXAMINER CARLSON, JEFFREY D

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte Lee et al 10/117,910 EXAMINER LE, HOA VAN
Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/203,025 EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

GRANTED

Ex Parte Feldman et al 10/092,746 EXAMINER WANG, QUAN ZHEN

Thursday October 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,341 GRIMES 112(1)/112(2) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Boisselle et al 10/669,745 NAGUMO 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L

Ex Parte Sosalla et al 10/738,269 GARRIS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Srinivasan et al 10/314,680 HAIRSTON 103(a) Wilson Ham & Holman EXAMINER CHOU, ALAN S

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ueki 10/714,864 HAHN 103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER HALEY, JOSEPH R

The scope of claimed limitations is determined by giving the terms in claims their ordinary and accustomed meaning while interpreting the claims as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with the specification. See In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Wachtmann 10/670,673 KRIVAK 103(a) Sunnstein Kahn Murphy & Timbers, L.L.P. EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Coleman 10/969,414 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) David V. Radack Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER HOOK, JAMES F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Molaire 10/888,484 SMITH 103(a) MARK G. BOCCHETTI EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER GILLESPIE, BENJAMIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Keller et al 10/469,711 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER LE, MARK T

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1621
FARMABIOS, S.P.A. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of HOVIONE LIMITED Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,087 6,528,666 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR APPELLANT: EDWARD A. MEILMAN DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES V. COSTIGAN HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER DAVIS, BRIAN J

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brown 10/286,233 EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B
Ex Parte Hamper et al 11/411,706 EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C
Ex Parte Langer et al 10/974,501 EXAMINER LEWIS, TISHA D
Ex Parte Malessa 10/557,562 EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
Ex Parte Prasad et al 10/707,671 EXAMINER MONIKANG, GEORGE C
Ex Parte TRAUSCH 11/277,411 EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
Ex Parte Wheeler et al 11/216,397 EXAMINER GEHMAN, BRYON P
Ex Parte Whitson et al 11/228,129 EXAMINER MEYERS, MATTHEW S

Wednesday October 27, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kajander 10/780,069 GARRIS 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/691,295 THOMAS 102(b) IBM CORPORATION INC EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Pietraszkiewicz et al 11/041,791 HORNER 103(a) MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP EXAMINER VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/141,443 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3636

Ex parte 500 Group, Inc.,Appellant and Patent Owner. 90/008,997 6,347,847 LANE 103(a) David C. Jenkins, Esq. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC Jack S. Baruka Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER HANSEN, JAMES ORVILLE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3637
Ex parte 500 Group, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,998 6,601,930
LANE 103(a) David C. Jenkins, Esq. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC Jack S. Baruka Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER HANSEN, JAMES ORVILLE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2741
Ex parte QUALCOMM CORPORATION 90/008,542 5,778,338 LEE 305/112(1)/112(2)/102 Patent Owner QUALCOMM Incorporated Third Party Requester: Andrew T. Spence ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER CHAWAN, VIJAY B

The Examiner’s position is without merit. We are aware of no authority which supports a per se rule that unless a produced value recited in a claim is further accompanied by an indication in the claim of how it is thereafter used, then the claim is regarded as indefinite. We have considered the two cases cited in the Examiner’s Answer, In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976) and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968). They do not set forth such a rule and the facts in those cases also are not apposite here.

Venezia, In re, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(g)

Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01,2173.05(k)

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2763
Ex parte i2 Technologies, US, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,645 5,930,156
SIU 102(b) PATENT OWNER: BOOTH UDALL PLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Paul A. Harrity Harrity Snyder, LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

“The determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’ under 35. U.S.C. § 102 involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference's disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Id. at 898-99 (citation omitted).

Our reviewing court has explained that a reference is “‘publicly accessible”’ upon a satisfactory showing that: (1) the “document has been disseminated”; or (2) “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).

Klopfenstein, In re, 380 F.3d 1345, 72 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2128.01

Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127

[T]he key inquiry is whether or not the reference was made “publicly accessible” such that “before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . .706.02, 2128.02, 2129, 2145

[T]he key inquiry is whether a reference has been made publicly accessible and there is no “limit . . . to finding something to be a ‘printed publication’ only when there is distribution and/or indexing” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Barber et al 10/430,699 EXAMINER PICH, PONNOREAY
Ex Parte Cai et al 11/018,263 EXAMINER SABOURI, MAZDA
Ex Parte El-Fekih et al 09/932,739 EXAMINER JUNTIMA, NITTAYA
Ex Parte Gruber et al 10/364,749 EXAMINER MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R
Ex Parte Gugger et al 11/105,953 EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V
Ex Parte Itoh et al 11/015,524 EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN
Ex Parte Riley 11/082,851 EXAMINER HOLLERAN, ANNE L
Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/326,410 EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
Ex Parte Terazaki et al 10/367,889 EXAMINER YU, GINA C
Ex Parte Trubiano et al 10/453,011 EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W
Ex Parte XIAO 11/161,741 EXAMINER FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE
Ex Parte Zielonka 11/199,082 EXAMINER JOYNER, KEVIN
Ex Parte Zuzga et al 11/161,898 EXAMINER GARRETT, ERIKA P
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/955,726 EXAMINER LE, HUNG D

Tuesday October 26, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kim 11/033,707 GARRIS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

Ex Parte Konishi et al 10/854,238 GARRIS 103(a) HAUPTMAN KANESAKA & BERNER EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Irby et al 10/404,468 HAIRSTON 103(a) MARY M. LEE, P.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Apps et al 11/475,315 BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gunder 11/648,463 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fowler et al 09/935,884 FISCHETTI 103(a) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

Appellants argue that “the Examiner has been engaged in piecemeal examination of the Application” (Appeal Br. 27). This argument relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter, because it relates to the manner in which examination has been conducted. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). See also the MPEP § 1003 (“All unusual questions of practice may be referred to the Technology Center Directors”) and MPEP §§ 1002.02(c)(3) and 1201.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/653,836 SONG 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3736
Ex parte ARTEMIS MEDICAL, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,995 6,699,205 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THOMPSON HINE, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOUGLAS R. HANSCOM JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2811
Ex parte SEMICONDCUTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,872 6,424,008 TURNER 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER MUNSON, GENE M

Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly crossed through citations of a properly submitted Information Disclosure Statement (Br. 28-29). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s decision to cross out specific citations was not related to the Rules, but instead is concerned with the subsequent publication (id.).

We do not find this line of argument, however, to raise any issue that can be decided on appeal. The actions of the Examiner in such a matter are not within our purview. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 232-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The Board has no jurisdiction for matters within the discretion of the examiner and not tantamount to a rejection of claims).

Watkinson, In re, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . .1201, 1412.01, 1457

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Black 10/761,088 EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
Ex Parte Cherkas et al 09/900,485 EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E
Ex Parte Cooper 11/901,091 EXAMINER LAIOS, MARIA J
Ex Parte Gabriel et al 10/627,002 EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
Ex Parte Kim et al 10/727,714 EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D
Ex Parte Ling et al 10/802,199 EXAMINER HASSAN, AURANGZEB
Ex Parte Needham et al 09/878,023 EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
Ex Parte Silverstein 10/698,926 EXAMINER VIEAUX, GARY C
Ex Parte Travelute et al 10/813,893 EXAMINER VO, HAI
Ex Parte Weigert et al 11/012,982 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P

Monday October 25, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Doran et al 10/746,754 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) R. Alan Burnett Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP EXAMINER YU, JAE UN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Baig et al 11/094,006BAHR 102(e) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dupree 11/105,106 FETTING 103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP / ARBITRON INC. EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D

VACATED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wei 10/928,474 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT WAI-KIT CHAN LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STUART

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Grissom et al 11/293,002 EXAMINER TRIEU, THAI BA

Friday October 22, 2010

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Siewert et al 11/753,817 BAHR 103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Tran 11/064,262 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) TRAN & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER KHAN, AMINA S

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3731
NUVASIVE, INC. Requester, Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,448 6,969,390 SONG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) Patent Owner: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP Third Party Requester: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Back et al 10/485,158 EXAMINER UNDERWOOD, DONALD W
Ex Parte Bayley et al 11/175,731 EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH
Ex Parte Casati et al 10/406,770 EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO
Ex Parte Chevallier et al 11/784,421 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
Ex Parte Huang et al 10/836,911 EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A
Ex Parte Korovin et al 10/605,447 EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V

Thursday October 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Whiteman 10/395,424 FREDMAN 103(a) JONATHAN P. TAYLOR, PH.D. BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH

It is improper to base a conclusion of obviousness upon facts gleaned only through hindsight. “To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction— an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc, v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

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)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Anderson 10/801,756 HUGHES 102(b) V. Gerald Grafe, esq. The Grafe Law Office, P.C. EXAMINER PARKER, BRANDON

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gould 10/261,245 McCARTHY 102(a)/103(a) THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER LEIVA, FRANK M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Eino 10/150,945 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 10/247,980 MOHANTY 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2785
Ex parte GraphOn, Inc. 90/009,059 6,061,798 LEE 102(b) Patent Owner LEWIS AND ROCA LLP Third Party Requester: David C. McPhie IRELL & MANELLA LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER ELMORE, STEPHEN C

During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reexamination). Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the USPTO should only limit the claim based on the specification when it expressly disclaims the broader definition. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2141.01(a)

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . .715, 2106, 2111.01, 2111.03, 2138, 2171, 2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04

Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dinh et al 10/631,057 EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC A
Ex Parte Feiste et al 11/252,410 EXAMINER VICARY, KEITH E
Ex Parte Hyser 10/638,008 EXAMINER PATEL, NIRAV B
Ex Parte McGurk et al 10/246,751 EXAMINER CORDERO GARCIA, MARCELA M
Ex Parte Odedra 11/443,601 EXAMINER LU, FRANK WEI MIN
Ex Parte Stanford et al 11/252,547 EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M

Wednesday October 20, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cao 10/420,643 PRATS 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

As our reviewing court recently stated, “it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose the claim limitations; in addition, ‘it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as the new invention does.’” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 3257312 at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007)).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ilda et al 11/210,862 RUGGIERO 102(e)/103(a) OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT LLP EXAMINER SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bergman et al 10/978,792 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2651
Ex parte MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. 90/008,302 6,995,940 LEE 102(e) FLIESLER MEYER LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER SNIEZEK, ANDREW L

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2733
Ex parte QPSX DEVELOPMENTS 5 PTY. LTD. 90/008,233 5,689,499 LEE 102(b) Scott A. McKeown OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. Third Party Requester: Christopher L. McKee, Esq. BANNER & WITCOFF LTD. EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Gilbert 11/208,904 EXAMINER MESFIN, YEMANE
Ex Parte Habermas 10/740,871 EXAMINER LEWIS, ALICIA M
Ex Parte Nguyen et al 11/199,523 EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

REMANDED

Ex Parte Choo et al 11/514,850 EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D

Tuesday October 19, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Brown 10/741,168 GRIMES 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEALTH HERO NETWORK, INC. EXAMINER SMITH, CAROLYN L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/313,161 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARSONS, THOMAS H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sylthe 10/106,900 LUCAS 103(a) Jones Day (RIM) - 2N EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:

Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The PTO's construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).

In re Suitco Surface, Inc., No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Huh 10/951,250 MacDONALD 103(a) Jefferson IP Law, LLP EXAMINER KARIMI, PEGEMAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Saffer et al 10/068,466 BARRY 103(a) Hewlett-Packard Company EXAMINER ORTIZ, BELIX M

Ex Parte Sicola 11/477,967 HOMERE 102/103(a) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Wu et al 10/659,934 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J

See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (explaining that “the Patent Office appellate tribunals, where it is found necessary, may take notice of facts beyond the record which, while not generally notorious, are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.”)

Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.03

REEXAMINATION

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3636
Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester RICHARD C. HIMELHOCH UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

When a term is used in a claim to distinguish it from a structure in the prior art, the term must be properly interpreted so it is understood what the claim term is “walling in or walling out.”2

2 Quoted from “Mending Wall” by Robert Frost. Claims are like fences: “‘Good fences make good neighbors.’”

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dietz et al 10/411,417 EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA
Ex Parte Kaushal et al 10/503,343 EXAMINER HUNG, YUBIN
Ex Parte Lifson et al 11/397,888 EXAMINER NORMAN, MARC E
Ex Parte Mocikat 10/716,580 EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE
Ex Parte Volcani et al 10/376,680 EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

Monday October 18, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gore 11/254,273 GARRIS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

Ex Parte Groh et al 11/130,764 TIMM 103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER YANG, JIE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Beesley et al 10/767,454 HOMERE 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Odorzynski 10/334,931 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Greif et al 10/362,038 ADAMS 103(a) BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Bourilkov et al 10/382,106 RIGGIERO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON (BO) EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mannella 10/797,884 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO

Ex Parte Vogan 11/238,870 O’NEILL 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3736
Ex parte ARTEMIS MEDICAL, INC., Appellant 90/009,167 6,730,042 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THOMPSON HINE, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOUGLAS R. HANSCOM JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2182
Ex parte FLEETWOOD GROUP, INC. 90/008,539 Re. 35,449 EASTHOM 103(a) Frederick S. Burkhart Van Dyke Gardner Linn & Burkhart Third-Party Requester Wesley W. Whitmeyer, Jr. St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens, LLC EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER ELAMIN, ABDELMONIEM I

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dufresne et al 10/993,149 EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A
Ex Parte Ebel 10/461,701 EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S
Ex Parte GOELET et al 09/258,132 EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J
Ex Parte Jahn et al 10/209,351 EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
Ex Parte Jud et al 10/250,963 EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
Ex Parte Matus 11/164,050 EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
Ex Parte Tseng et al 10/868,947 EXAMINER JUEDES, AMY E

Friday October 15, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Landingham 10/260,121 KIMLIN 103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NAT'L SECURITY, LLC EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Takeuchi 10/559,870 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER

Ex Parte LeDoux et al 10/908,488 MacDONALD 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Nada 10/977,627 HORNER 251 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE

The Federal Circuit has described application of the recapture rule as “a three-step process”:

(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.

No. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02

Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . 1412.02

It is clear that in determining whether “surrender” of subject matter has occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee’s amendment or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent. This is because the recapture rule is aimed at ensuring that the public can rely on a patentee’s admission during prosecution of an original patent. … Thus, if the objective public observer can discern a surrender of subject matter during the prosecution of an original patent in order to overcome prior art and obtain the patent, then the recapture rule should prevent the reissuing of that patent to claim the surrendered subject matter.

Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

A surrender can occur by argument as well as by amendment. Hester [Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc.], 142 F.3d [1472,] 1480-84 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)] (noting the statement in Clement that “‘[t]o determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection’ ” (quoting [In re] Clement, 131 F.3d [1464,] 1469 [(Fed. Cir. 1997)]) (emphasis added in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1480)). We stated in Hester that, like prosecution history estoppel, “unmistakable assertions made to the Patent Office in support of patentability” “can give rise to a surrender for purposes of the recapture rule.” Id. at 1482.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.02

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464,45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02

Ex Parte Pagliari et al 10/215,877 FETTING 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER LONG, FONYA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lengeling 10/334,252 LUCAS 103(a) APPLE INC./BSTZBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

Ex Parte Stolowitz et al 10/885,960 FETTING 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC EXAMINER CRAIG, DWIN M

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Khayrallah et al 10/427,872 KRIVAK 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER
PAN, YUWEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Laskin et al 101709,360 FETTING 103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP EXAMINER KANG, IRENE S

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Brandt et al EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
Ex Parte Gray et al EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M
Ex Parte Kropaczek et al EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH
Ex Parte Letant et al EXAMINER KIM, KIHO
Ex Parte Raivisto et al EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
Ex Parte Sugahara EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG

VACATED

Ex Parte Hardwick et al EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte Richert et al EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T

GRANTED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Davis et al EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A

Thursday October 14, 2010

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Li et al 10/930,393 BAUMEISTER 103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE , P.A. EXAMINER WRIGHT, ANDREW D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Onoda et al 10/936,592 O’NEILL 102(e) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WONG, JEFFREY KEITH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Emami et al 10/331,696 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ashley EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
Ex Parte Bahnsen et al EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T
Ex Parte Cheng EXAMINER STERRETT, JEFFREY L
Ex Parte Constantz et al EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M
Ex Parte Hayes et al EXAMINER LY, NGHI H
Ex Parte Pirro et al EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

Wednesday October 13, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Knapp 11/598,903 GRIMES 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

Ex Parte Mauritz 11/211,846 GREEN 103(a) ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS INC. EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

Ex Parte Wang et al 11/008,929 FREDMAN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Shen et al 10/185,905 MacDONALD 103(a) DLA PIPER LLP (US) EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

Ex Parte Anastas 10/924,674 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WALTHALL, ALLISON N

Ex Parte Luciano et al 10/932,867 MacDONALD 102(e) Lexmark International, Inc. EXAMINER GARCIA, GABRIEL I

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Vedders 10/770,964 MacDONALD 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LUKS, JEREMY AUSTIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Cohen et al 11/084,317 McCARTHY 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

Ex Parte Lee 11/120,906 O’NEILL 103(a) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

Ex Parte Pollock 11/258,494 BAHR 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

Ex Parte Ramalingam et al 11/001,714 NAPPI 103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PHAN, THIEM D

see also In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972) (“Where . . . the prior art disclosure suggests the outer limits of the range of suitable values, and that the optimum resides within that range, and where there are indications elsewhere that in fact the optimum should be sought within that range, the determination of optimum values outside that range may not be obvious.”).

Ex Parte Stadelhofer 10/848,517 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Achacoso et al 10/375,358 HOMERE 112(1)/102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Ma 10/461,012 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CHRISTOPHER C. WINSLADE MCANDREWS HELD AND MALLOY, LTD. EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2722
Ex parte RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/007,187 5,726,772 TORCZON Ipsis verbis test/Omitted element test For the patentee, Michael Greenbaum, BLANK ROME LLP For the requester, John D. Vandenberg, KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER LEE, CHEUKFAN

The "omitted element" test, sometimes called the "essential element" test has been broadly criticized. It is instructive that one of the most widely vilified decisions in this context, Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., which affirmed an invalidity based on the absence of a key element, has never been overturned. How can this apparent paradox be explained? The key lies in the caution repeated in our decision: written description determinations are so fact-specific that it is hazardous to read too much into any precedent. The Gentry Gallery court had to determine whether a finding that the specification as a whole conveyed a requirement for a specific element was clearly erroneous. In determining it was not, the court expressly rejected an over-reading of its holding:

It is a truism that a claim need not be limited to a preferred embodiment. However, in a given case, the scope of the right to exclude may be limited by a narrow disclosure.

Critics of Gentry Gallery have often converted the decision into a straw-man for criticism. Any opinion when so caricatured can be made to seem foolish. When the opinion is read narrowly, in light of the specific facts of the case, as the court intended, it remains a viable (albeit limited) opinion.

Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498(Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Beck EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
Ex Parte Faltesek et al EXAMINER LEE, PING
Ex Parte Feiste et al EXAMINER HUISMAN, DAVID J
Ex Parte von Foerster EXAMINER LARSON, JUSTIN MATTHEW
Ex Parte Kakiuchi et al EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
Ex Parte Kamimura et al EXAMINER JULES, FRANTZ F
Ex Parte Liu et al EXAMINER David England
Ex Parte Londono EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN
Ex Parte Palmer EXAMINER LABBEES, EDNY
Ex Parte Seymour et al EXAMINER CORDRAY, DENNIS R