Thursday December 30, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Mani et al 10/676,903 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER KO, JASON Y

1734 Ex Parte Galligan et al 10/612,658 PAK 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

See In re Stencil, 828 F.2d 751 (Fed. Cir 1987) (holding that the functional limitation or intended purpose recited in a claim distinguishes the claimed device from the prior art device); In re Watanabe, 315 F.2d 924, 928 (CCPA 1963) (holding that the functional limitation or intended use recited in a claim limits the claimed electrode to a particular type of electrode having properties suitable for such function or intended use); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969) (The structure or property of a claimed product implied by process limitations must be considered when assessing the patentability of a product-by-process claim over the prior art).

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

1773 Ex Parte Herpst 09/977,664 SMITH 103(a) ROGER M. RATHBUN EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Landin et al 10/821,412 LUCAS 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Smart 10/818,920 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PERT, EVAN T

“[W]hen a party challenges written description support for an interference count or the copied claim in an interference, the originating disclosure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim language.” Robertson v. Timmermans, 603 F.3d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[In] an interference in which claims copied from one party’s patent into the other party’s application [are] the subject of a motion for invalidity based on prior art[,] . . . the claims should be interpreted in light of their host disclosure, just as they would during ex parte prosecution.” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Chan et al 10/773,496 LORIN 101/102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER POUNCIL, DARNELL A

Notwithstanding that this test [machine and/or transformation] for determining patent eligibility of a process is unduly narrow (see Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, No. 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S. June 28, 2010), it can nevertheless be instructive as a factor in determining whether the claimed processes are patent-ineligible abstract ideas.
...

The Examiner finds that the claimed processes are not tied to another statutory class of invention, such as a machine. But the Examiner does not explain why this is so. See Answer 3-4. An explanation is made more necessary, given that the claims are reasonably broadly construed to require a particular apparatus. That is, they are nominally tied to a particular apparatus in contradistinction to the Examiner’s finding. The initial burden of establishing that the claimed processes are patent-ineligible abstract ideas has not therefore been established because the construction of the claims does not fully support finding that they are not tied to an apparatus as an underlying factor in concluding that the processes as claimed as a whole are patent-ineligible abstract ideas.

3628 Ex Parte Liew et al 10/456,410 LORIN 103(a) WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON LLP EXAMINER SALIARD, SHANNON S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1639 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/566,697 WALSH 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PAUL AND PAUL EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MACK-RAY, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,387 and 90/010,207 7,314,328 SONG 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: MYERS WOLIN, LLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JONES DAY EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER WALCZAK, DAVID J

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MACK-RAY, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,388 and 90/010,208 7,325,994 SONG 102(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MYERS WOLIN, LLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JONES DAY EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER WALCZAK, DAVID J

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bourgeois et al
Ex Parte Bourgeois et al
Ex Parte Doery
Ex Parte Hendra
Ex Parte Schwartz