REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Reid et al 11/222,712 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL

1623 Ex Parte Carlino 10/523,657 GREEN PRATS FREDMAN nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte White et al 10/935,156 TIMM SMITH HASTINGS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

1742 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/458,636 OWENS FRANKLIN HASTINGS 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EXAMINER TENTONI, LEO B

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Santosuosso 11/149,489 BARRY JEFFERY COURTENAY III 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Harris 10/890,721 BLANKENSHIP LUCAS DANG 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SCOTT C HARRIS EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2443 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/261,126 HOMERE DIXON BARRY 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A

2484 Ex Parte Proidl et al 10/015,836 BAUMEISTER HAHN WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER SHIBRU, HELEN

2493 Ex Parte Schaeck et al 09/731,509 HOMERE THOMAS BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G

2444 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 10/038,142 KRIVAK HOFF HAHN 112(2)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Riley et al 10/097,040 SAADAT KRIVAK MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2628 Ex Parte Sevastianov et al 10/953,868 KRIVAK RUGGIERO BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Halder 11/392,076 HORNER KERINS McCARTHY 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

3677 Ex Parte Vosbikian et al 11/425,772 HORNER MCCARTHY SILVERBERG 103(a) ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. John F. Letchford EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Jira et al 10/228,280 PRATS GRIMES McCOLLUM 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER DEVI, SARVAMANGALA J N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/948,774 JEFFERY HUGHES LUCAS 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER JAMI, HARES

2161 Ex Parte Drory et al 10/814,579 HOMERE BARRY DIXON 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Gordon et al 09/792,889 LORIN CRAWFORD MOHANTY 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD - COX EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3628
Ex parte Earlychildhood LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,156 6,345,400 LANE MEDLEY SONG 102(b)/103(a) Haverstock & Owens, LLP Norman E. Lehrer, P.C. EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M

See Bruckelmyer v. Gound Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or 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.’” (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F.Supp. 738, 743 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)).

I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp 738, 148 USPQ 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2128
EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2603
Ex parte LG ELECTRONICS, INC. 90/008,522 5,077,733 EASTHOM BOALICK TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Third Party Requester: WEN LIU LIU & LIU EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K

The “fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Leibel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

AFFIRMED

1713 Ex Parte Annapragada et al 10/847,695 EXAMINER DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD
3724 Ex Parte Baxivanelis et al 11/290,902 EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU
1641 Ex Parte Hickok et al 10/774,144 EXAMINER GRUN, JAMES LESLIE
1765 Ex Parte Hyon et al 10/643,673 REISSUE 6,168,626 EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
1796 Ex Parte Hyon et al 10/643,674 EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2471 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,903 EXAMINER PHAN, TRI H
1617 Ex Parte Kibler et al 10/522,157 EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A
1655 Ex Parte Lang 10/504,195 EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
2878 Ex Parte Lerner et al 11/149,605 EXAMINER DOWLING, WILLIAM C
2443 Ex Parte Matz 10/176,908 EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M
1788 Ex Parte Miller 11/405,361 EXAMINER VO, HAI
2617 Ex Parte Mohindra et al 10/780,471 EXAMINER AFSHAR, KAMRAN
2168 Ex Parte Mott et al 10/769,945 EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO
1648 Ex Parte Page et al 10/312,045 EXAMINER PENG, BO
2186 Ex Parte Parkinson et al 10/938,705 EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
2816 Ex Parte Rotzoll et al 10/945,775 EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B
3625 Ex Parte Stanglmayr 10/304,117 EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C
1612 Ex Parte Vishnupad et al 11/198,613 EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
2812 Ex Parte Wu et al 11/117,152 EXAMINER PATEL, REEMA
3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/103,353 EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D

REHEARING

DENIED

3651 Ex Parte Krischer 10/483,129 EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A
3766 Ex Parte Libbus 10/962,845 EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE
1746 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 10/142,512 EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H
2444 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 11/300,943 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
2444 Ex Parte O’SULLIVAN 11/304,167 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
1767 Ex Parte Sophiea et al 11/138,541 EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Yamada 11/175,370 MacDONALD Dissenting MARTIN BAUMEISTER 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER GUERTIN, AARON M

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Ow 10/913,085 GREEN GRIMES MILLS non statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER EXAMINER HAMA, JOANNE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Fuller et al 11/550,952 PAK KRATZ TIMM 102(b)/103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Imai et al 10/603,721 SIU DIXON HOMERE 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte O’BRIEN, JR et al 10/409,970 SAADAT RUGGIERO HAHN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER NI, SUHAN KRIEG DEVAULT LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Tanaka et al 10/639,663 MOHANTY CRAWFORD FETTING 101/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER HAMMOND III, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Yan et al 10/835,729 HOMERE DIXON BARRY 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Gruhn et al 10/501,725 EASTHOM HAHN MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)
Siemens Corporation EXAMINER CHARIOUI, MOHAMED
See Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003)( holding that “remote” includes the same room pursuant to the disclosure, claims, and file history).

Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01

AFFIRMED
1792 Ex Parte Shih et al 10/863,360 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
1731 Ex Parte Davison 10/843,765 EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
3694 Ex Parte Latimer et al 10/638,607 EXAMINER HOLLY, JOHN H
3753 Ex Parte Biester 10/525,926EXAMINERROST, ANDREW J

REHEARING
GRANTED-IN-PART

1628 Ex Parte Miller 10/318,659 EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Dronzek 10/292,231 GARRIS HANLON OWENS 112(2)/103(a) HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Rothermel 09/954,077 KRIVAK RUGGIERO HOFF 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

Although a computer may be patent eligible if it “is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software,” In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994), here, there is no hardware that executes the claimed code.

Alappat, In re, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Ghafoor et al 10/051,355 MOHANTY LORIN FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Roozenboom 11/342,630 SONG DELMENDO BOALICK 102(b) EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.

3769 Ex Parte Wilkens et al 10/094,431 BAHR STAICOVICI BARRETT 103(a) Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M

The Examiner's speculative reasoning therefore does not serve as a rational underpinning supporting the Examiner's proposed combination. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office … may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis").

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2142

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Spinelli 11/150,545 KERINS HORNER SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a)/112(2)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THOMAS SPINELLI, ESQ. EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

3651 Ex Parte Goddard et al 11/107,850 HORNER KERINS BARRETT 102(e)/103(a) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP EXAMINER COLLINS, MICHAEL

3671 Ex Parte Levinsohn 11/394,283 BAHR KERINS MCCARTHY 103(a) EXAMINER MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC

See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943) (if an applicant does not seasonably traverse the taking of official notice, then the object of the official notice is taken to be admitted prior art); Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091 (where an applicant for a patent has failed to challenge a fact officially noticed by the Examiner, and it is clear that the applicant has been amply apprised of such finding so as to have the opportunity to make such challenge, the Examiner’s finding shall be considered conclusive).

Chevenard, In re, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Serhan et al 10/340,259 HORNER BAHR STAICOVICI 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER STEWART, ALVIN J

See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results) (citations omitted).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089(Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20,2145

REISSUE AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Dalvi et al 10/094,056 6,035,401 JEFFERY MacDONALD HOFF 251 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SONG, HOSUK

A limitation “materially narrows” the reissue claims if the narrowing limitation is directed to one or more “overlooked aspects” of the invention. Hester Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1482-83 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

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

AFFIRMED

2857 Ex Parte Grey et al 10/289,798 EXAMINER WEST, JEFFREY R
2472 Ex Parte Jarett 10/414,864 EXAMINER NGUYEN, BRIAN D
2626 Ex Parte Lux 10/737,977 EXAMINER SHAH, PARAS D
2167 Ex Parte Maria Meijer et al 10/809,171 EXAMINER LOVEL, KIMBERLY M
1741 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/939,277 EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART, DENIED-IN-PART

2854 Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 10/543,051 EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E

DENIED

2183 Ex Parte Lataille et al 11/526,870 EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

DENIED

2175 Ex Parte Morrison et al 09/738,050 EXAMINER VU, THANH T

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Hedner et al 10/204,048 PRATS GRIMES McCOLLUM 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1641 Ex Parte Brock et al 10/367,528 MILLS HANLON HASTINGS 112(1) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Plumb et al 11/195,232 FRANKLIN SMITH NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) WATERS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

1716 EEx Parte Srivastava 10/755,617 NAGUMO KRATZ SMITH 102(a)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/392,762 LUCAS COURTENAY, III THOMAS 102(e) MARK MCBURNEY INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Buckman et al 10/080,944 RUGGIERO HAIRSTON NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN

2617 Ex Parte Kim 10/443,133 KRIVAK RUGGIERO BAUMEISTER 103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER TORRES, MARCOS L

2623 Ex Parte Usikov 10/684,000 MacDONALD MARTIN HOFF 102(b)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER PATEL, JAYESH A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Bender et al 09/983,493 LORIN FETTING MOHANTY 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER I WORJLOH, JALATEE

3622 Ex Parte Kohda et al 09/766,646 LORIN CRAWFORD PRATS 101/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Rosenberg 10/182,498 GRIMES SCHEINER PRATS 103(a) WILLIAM H DIPPERT REED SMITH EXAMINER JACKSON, BRANDON LEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gopinath et al 10/405,760 LUCAS BLANKENSHIP DINKER 102(e)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Michelson 10/683,071 McCARTHY BAHR HORNER 112(1)/103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (setting out the standard for when the taking of Official Notice is appropriate).

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

AFFIRMED

3772 Ex Parte Biewend et al 10/745,201 EXAMINER LEWIS, KIM M
2454 Ex Parte Felkey et al 10/051,180 EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUSTIN
3634 Ex Parte Fitzgibbon 10/195,802 EXAMINER STRIMBU, GREGORY J
3622 Ex Parte Graham et al 09/945,378 EXAMINER BEKERMAN, MICHAEL
2156 Ex Parte Hansmann et al 10/037,700 EXAMINER AL HASHEMI, SANA A
3738 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10/623,381 EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H
3634 Ex Parte Jarrell 11/117,610 EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
3686 Ex Parte Kaehler et al 10/687,223 EXAMINER ALTSCHUL, AMBER L
1731 Ex Parte Park et al 11/313,451 EXAMINER GROUP, KARL E
1618 Ex Parte Tolmachev et al 11/358,681 EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN
1617 Ex Parte Villanueva et al 11/303,011 EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Ernst et al 10/243,590 TIMM KIMLIN WARREN 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER HENDRICKSON, STUART L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Bokhari et al 09/902,929 BLANKENSHIP HOMERE COURTENAY III 102(a)/103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- NVID EXAMINER ROSWELL, MICHAEL

Section 102(a) establishes that a person can not patent what was already known to others. If the invention was known to or used by others in this country before the date of the patentee’s invention, the later inventor has not contributed to the store of knowledge, and has no entitlement to a patent. Accordingly, in order to invalidate a patent based on prior knowledge or use, that knowledge or use must have been available to the public. See Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 139, 231 USPQ 644, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the Section 102(a) language “known or used by others in this country” means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public); 35 U.S.C. Section 102(a) reviser’s note (1952) (noting that “‘known’ has been held to mean ‘publicly known’” and that “no change in the language is made at this time”); P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act (1954) reprinted in 75 J. Pat. Trademark Off. Soc’y 161, 178 (1993) (“interpretation [of Section 102(a)] by the courts excludes various kinds of private knowledge not known to the public”; these “narrowing interpretations are not changed”).

Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . .2128, 2132

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Kothen et al 10/559,207 SILVERBERG KERINS BARRETT 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE LLP EXAMINER MCGRAW, TREVOR EDWIN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1711
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of DUPONT PERFORMANCE ELASTOMERS, L.L.C. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,144 7,001,951 DELMENDO SCHAFER LEBOVITZ 103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester: CHARLES E. VAN HORN FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER WOODWARD, ANA LUCRECIA

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1561
Ex parte Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GMBH, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/010,241 5,836,908 ROBERTSON SCHAFER LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: KENYON & KENYON LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER CHO, DAVID J

EXAMINER REVERSED

3992 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1618
Ex parte Hear-Wear Technologies, L.L.C. Appellant 90/010,085 5,606,621 MEDLEY BOALICK TURNER 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P Third Party Requester: DAVID J. CUSHING SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER ISEN, FORESTER W

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2157
Ex parte IHANCE, INC. 90/008,951 7,076,533 LEE EASTHOM TURNER 102(b)/103(a) Gary V. Harkcom GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.LC. Third Party Requester: Kevin D. McCarthy Roach Brown McCarthy & Gruber, P.C. EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER MEKY, MOUSTAFA M

AFFIRMED

1614 Ex Parte Buchman 11/496,710 EXAMINER VAKILI, ZOHREH

2437 Ex Parte Hursey 10/417,194 EXAMINER PEARSON, DAVID J

2169 Ex Parte LaRue et al 10/094,110 EXAMINER TRUONG, CAM Y T

REHEARING

GRANTED

2617 Ex Parte Agapi et al 10/744,254 EXAMINER AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Hilmi et al 10/755,483 HANLON GARRIS WARREN 103(a) COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Barazesh et al 10/438,109 KRIVAK HOFF HAHN 103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Kryskow et al 10/222,190 LORIN CRAWFORD MOHANTY 102(e)/103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Braun et al 10/364,148 O’NEILL PATE, III BARRETT 103(a) CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD, LLP EXAMINER GUIDOTTI, LAURA COLE

3751 Ex Parte Neuner et al 11/068,704 McCARTHY HORNER KERINS 103(a) THE ESTEE LAUDER COS, INC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Toyama et al 10/673,111 HUGHES BLANKENSHIP HOMERE 101/103(a) Wiley Rein LLP EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Byun 11/071,543 MacDONALD NAPPI WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER CHU, DAVID H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Mayersak 10/443,621 O’NEILL PATE, III SILVERBERG 132(a)/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, LLP EXAMINER CHAMBERS, TROY

AFFIRMED

1628 Ex Parte Montgomery et al 11/118,824 EXAMINER HUI, SAN MING R
1639 Ex Parte Gmeiner 11/704,090 EXAMINER STEELE, AMBER D
2618 Ex Parte Jaakola 10/509,402 EXAMINER PHAM, TUAN
2628 Ex Parte Goss et al 10/684,030 EXAMINER TUNG, KEE M
2811 Ex Parte Miura 11/412,045 EXAMINER TRAN, TRANG Q
3663 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/403,472 EXAMINER TO, TUAN C
3761 Ex Parte Newlin et al 11/020,843 EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Taylor et al 10/200,148 SPIEGEL MILLS GREEN 102(b) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP EXAMINER ANGELL, JON E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Isenstein et al 10/866,428 GARRIS KIMLIN KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Griffin 10/887,279 DANG BLANKENSHIP COURTENAY III 103(a) RIM/FINNEGAN EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sgaraglio et al 10/108,934 LORIN FISCHETTI MOHANTY 102(a)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MALHOTRA, SANJEEV

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1761
FORWARD FOODS, LLC, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of PROTEIN BAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,310 6,830,766 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI, P.C. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER WEIER, ANTHONY J

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1761
FORWARD FOODS, LLC, Requester and Respondent v. PROTEIN BAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,311 6,827,955 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI, P.C. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER WEIER, ANTHONY J

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2681
Ex parte TANTIVY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,982 6,614,776 TURNER LEE EASTHOM 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) VOLPE AND KENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER MAUNG, NAY AUNG

AFFIRMED

1600
Ex Parte Asada et al 10/524,996 EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
2100
Ex Parte Finke-Anlauff et al 10/774,670 EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L
2100
Ex Parte Nettleton et al 10/879,665 EXAMINER KHAKHAR, NIRAV K
2100
Ex Parte Odero et al 09/932,262 EXAMINER ROSWELL, MICHAEL
2400
Ex Parte Parks et al 10/774,934 EXAMINER FLYNN, NATHAN J
2600
Ex Parte McAllen et al 11/005,761 EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
2800
Ex Parte Hewitt et al 10/651,560 EXAMINER DINH, PAUL
3600
Ex Parte Blankinship et al 11/461,660 EXAMINER KEITH, JACK W
3600
Ex Parte Blankinship et al 10/954,124 EXAMINER KEITH, JACK W
3600
Ex Parte Sutton et al 10/851,927 EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG

REHEARING

DENIED

2800
Ex Parte Cochran et al 11/052,155 EXAMINER ROGERS, DAVID A
3700
Ex Parte Gruender 11/250,330 EXAMINER SELF, SHELLEY M
3700
Ex Parte Khan et al 10/812,380 EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Mudge 10/849,509 REISSUE 5,599,804 MILLS SPIEGEL GREEN 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

"By its terms, a 'synergistically effective amount' is a functional limitation." Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865(Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.01, 814

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Mehus et al 10/602,384 OWENS SMITH HASTINGS 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER SIEFKE, SAMUEL P

The Examiner’s argument that it is predictable that Nomura’s computer memory could store the Appellants’ plurality of predetermined algorithms is not well taken because, as stated by the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1403 n.29 (CCPA 1969):

In one sense, a general-purpose digital computer may be regarded as but a storeroom of parts and/or electrical components. But once a program has been introduced, the general-purpose digital computer becomes a special-purpose digital computer (i.e., a specific electrical circuit with or without electro-mechanical components) which, along with the process by which it operates, may be patented subject, of course, to the requirements of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness.

Thus, the question is not whether Nomura’s memory could store the Appellants’ plurality of predetermined algorithms but, rather, is whether Nomura would have rendered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, the Appellants’ memory which stores the Appellants’ plurality of predetermined algorithms and the Appellants’ controller which is programmed to calculate the concentration of a product based in part upon the one of the plurality of predetermined algorithms. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In making an obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ"). The Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that Nomura would have rendered such a memory and controller prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01

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

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Azadet 10/610,335 MacDONALD HOFF HAHN 102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER GHEBRETINSAE, TEMESGHEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Friedrich 11/726,566 BAHR McCARTHY BARRETT 103(a) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER SWINEHART, EDWIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Luddy et al 10/947,620 SCHAFER LANE MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER KOSANOVIC, HELENA

It is well settled that multiple references may be used in the context of an anticipation rejection, to show how one skilled in the art would understand words and phrases used in the anticipating reference. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Extrinsic evidence may be used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of terms and phrases in an anticipatory reference.); In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562-63 (CCPA 1978) (“[T]he key issue before us is whether the PTO, in making a rejection under 35 USC 102(b) on a single prior art reference that discloses every material element of the claimed subject matter, can properly rely on additional references for such purpose. We hold in the affirmative.”).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

Samour, In re, 571 F.2d 559, 197 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

AFFIRMED

1700
Ex Parte Stern et al 09/558,329 REISSUE EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

2100
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/803,603 EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B

2100
Ex Parte Zakrzewski 10/803,872 EXAMINER COUGHLAN, PETER D

2400
Ex Parte Cook et al 10/397,064 EXAMINER TRAN, ELLEN C

3600
Ex Parte Forrer 11/561,930 EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL

3700
Ex Parte Hardwicke et al 10/682,227 EXAMINER KIM, TAE JUN

3700
Ex Parte Voegele 11/377,655 EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

REHEARING

DENIED

3700
Ex Parte Roche et al 10/917,012 EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kuo et al 11/127,482 MacDONALD, MANTIS MERCADER, WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER VALENTINE, JAMI M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Castillo 10/453,849 STAICOVICI, BAHR, BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER TRAN, HANH VAN

A “means-plus-function” limitation covers structure which performs a function identical to that recited in the limitation and which differs insubstantially from the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.2d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2183, 2184

Ex Parte Nickel et al 11/130,912 HORNER, PATE III, SILVERBERG 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Banerjee et al 09/941,251 LEE, SCHAFER, TIERNEY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Thomas et al 10/289,259 JEFFERY, STEPHENS, HUGHES 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Godovich 11/139,851 BAUMEISTER, MANTIS MERCADER, WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ADAMS & WILKS EXAMINER BERHANU, SAMUEL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Pruitt et al 11/247,806 HORNER, PATE III, SILVERBERG 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Chen et al 11/421,084 EXAMINER LEE, HSIEN MING
Ex Parte Dreher et al 11/137,060 EXAMINER YU, GINA C
Ex Parte Gordon 10/762,714 EXAMINER CLAYTOR, DEIRDRE RENEE
Ex Parte Lee et al 10/457,322 EXAMINER BEMBEN, RICHARD M
Ex Parte Li et al 11/438,723 EXAMINER BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M
Ex Parte MacDonald et al 11/094,807 EXAMINER SRIVASTAVA, KAILASH C
Ex Parte Manowitz et al 09/782,067 EXAMINER JERABEK, KELLY L
Ex Parte Mao et al 11/611,554 EXAMINER GUSSOW, ANNE
Ex Parte McArdle et al 10/656,020 EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A
Ex Parte Sloop 10/625,146 EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S
Ex Parte Steklenski et al 10/393,835 EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE
Ex Parte Tanzer et al 11/027,555 EXAMINER AHMED, HASAN SYED
Ex Parte Thai 10/409,794 EXAMINER FAULK, DEVONA E

REHEARING DENIED

Ex Parte Candy et al 10/661,249 EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Raines 11/120,811 TURNER 102(e) KENNETH L. NASH EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

Ex Parte Raines 10/628,819 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) KENNETH L. NASH EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

Whether a reference is analogous art is part of the analysis of the scope and content of the prior art in the
obviousness determination. See Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Prods. Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art.

In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Internal citations omitted).

A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have recommended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Kahn, In re, 202 USPQ 772 (Comm’r Pat. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2012.01

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Hochman 11/057,853 EXAMINER HO, CHUONG T
Ex Parte Moreau et al 10/925,737 EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P
Ex Parte Roba et al 10/177,669 EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
Ex Parte Svendsen 10/930,719 EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN
Ex Parte Watanabe et al 10/910,308 EXAMINER LEE, SIN J

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte Senda et al 10/502,686 EXAMINER THOMAS, BRADLEY H
Ex Parte Woods et al 11/470,060 EXAMINER PATEL, MUNJALKUMAR C

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gessler et al OWENS 103(a) 10/450,187 KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H

Ex Parte Xu et al 10/919,224 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) MOLECULAR IMPRINTS EXAMINER BOWMAN, ANDREW J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte DeIntinis 11/514,519 LEE 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Kenneth P. Glynn, Esq. EXAMINER KELLEHER, WILLIAM J

However, a prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). Thus, it is not necessary to preserve the conversion-to-bag functionality of Buhyoff’s beach towel.

EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 225 USPQ 20(Fed. Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Farrell 10/183,678 GRIMES 112(2)/112(1)/103(a) JOHN FARRELL, NMD EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

While it is true that the scope of the invention in a patent application is measured by what is stated in the claims, the same is not true of what is disclosed in a prior art reference. See In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The scope of a patent’s claims determines what infringes the patent; it is no measure of what it discloses. A patent discloses only that which it describes, whether specifically or in general terms, so as to convey intelligence to one capable of understanding.”). Thus, the fact that Oshlack did not claim a three component formulation is not evidence that it, in combination with Miller, would not have made such a formulation obvious.

Benno, In re, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163, 2163.06

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Burckart et al 10/723,924 EXAMINER MURRAY, DANIEL C
Ex Parte Kien et al 11/147,695 EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10/918,892 EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A