Tuesday December 14, 2010

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/785,382 TURNER FETTING LORIN 103(a) FENWICK & WEST LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Voden 11/183,426 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA

3711 Ex Parte Voden 11/824,369 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA

This analysis amounts to application of a per se rule of obviousness, namely, that parts of a reference may always be rearranged as a general proposition in order to negate any patentable distinction. However, the Examiner provided no comparison between the facts of Japikse and the facts of the underlying application to explain how the holding of Japikse applies to the claims on appeal. As such, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection does not rest on a sound evidentiary basis because reliance on per se rules of obviousness is legally incorrect.

Japikse, In re, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Venkitaraman 10/107,861 SAADAT HAHN RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. Penny Tomko EXAMINER HAILE, FEBEN

2434 Ex Parte Kuno et al 10/855,579 JEFFERY FISCHETTI LORIN 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B

Where, as here, a claimed machine or article of manufacture involves a mathematical algorithm, we must therefore determine whether the scope of the claimed invention encompasses one of the judicially-created exceptions. Ex parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1031 (BPAI 2009) (precedential). We therefore must determine whether the claim is limited (1) “to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., ‘not a mere field-of-use label having no significance’)”, or (2) “so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either ‘in all fields’ of use of the algorithm or even in ‘only one field.’” Id.

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Thomas et al 11/178,740 MacDONALD HOFF NAPPI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER JAIN, ANKUR

2618 Ex Parte Bertino et al 10/924,542 SAADAT KRIVAK RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Forman 10/365,060 TURNER FISCHETTI LORIN 102(e)/112(1) 101
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2604 Ex parte MOTOROLA CORPORATION, INC. 90/009,509 5,157,391 EASTHOM SIU TURNER 102(b)/102(e) Motorola, Inc. Third Party Requester : Wilmer Hale DC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER MAGISTRE, DERVIS

See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.”).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3402 Ex parte Smiths Interconnect Microwave Components, Inc. Appellant 90/007,118 5,332,981 MEDLEY LEE TURNER 102(b)/103(a) Ward & Olivo LLP Third Party Requester: C. Bruce Hamburg Jordan and Hamburg LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER NELLI, RAYMOND A

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD 90/008,145 6,002,457 SIU BOALICK EASTHOM 102(b)/102(a)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Counsel for Patent Owner: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLC Counsel for Third Party Requesters: Bruce K. Lagerman, Lagerman and Associates, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

AFFIRMED

2872 Ex Parte Bender 11/183,481 MacDONALD EXAMINER CHAPEL, DEREK S
3738 Ex Parte Fallin et al 11/142,933 MILLS EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD
2811 Ex Parte Gan et al 11/143,405 BAUMEISTER EXAMINER HU, SHOUXIANG
3725 Ex Parte Hines et al 11/279,142 BAHR EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T
1612 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 11/437,833 PRATS EXAMINER HOLLOMAN, NANNETTE
2191 Ex Parte Kocev et al 09/944,776 HOMERE EXAMINER PHAM, THOMAS K
2873 Ex Parte Krawczak 10/822,430 SAADAT EXAMINER STULTZ, JESSICA T
1657 Ex Parte Langolf et al 11/640,431 LEBOVITZ EXAMINER GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN
2877 Ex Parte Luey et al 10/460,876 MacDONALD EXAMINER VALENTIN, JUAN D
2617 Ex Parte Malamud et al 10/927,842 KRIVAK EXAMINER BALAOING, ARIEL A
2192 Ex Parte McGrath et al 10/745,822 COURTENAY III EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN
1639 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/474,282 ADAMS EXAMINER LIU, SUE XU
3729 Ex Parte Mori et al 11/489,992 TIERNEY EXAMINER CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU
3693 Ex Parte Seifert et al 10/855,666 MOHANTY EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M
1627 Ex Parte Tsao 10/346,013 WALSH EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A

REHEARING

DENIED

1644 Ex Parte Kaisheva et al 10/291,528 LANE EXAMINER KIM, YUNSOO
2447 Ex Parte Rajsic 10/814,330 HAIRSTON EXAMINER MOORE JR, MICHAEL J