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