REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Hart et al 10/846,239 PRATS 103(a)
UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Semmlinger et al 10/595,791 FRANKLIN 103(a)
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1741 Ex Parte Vild et al 11/255,531 SMITH 112(1)/103(a)
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L

1796 Ex Parte Wershofen et al 11/173,482 NAGUMO 103(a)
BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1747 Ex Parte Launstein et al 10/498,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a)
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER FELTON, MICHAEL J

1726 Ex Parte Freluche et al 10/943,013 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a)
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LEWIS, BEN

1743 Ex Parte Graney et al 10/954,322 OWENS 102(b)/103(a)
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER BODAWALA, DIMPLE N

1782 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 10/737,474 SMITH 103(a)
GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

1747 Ex Parte Narumiya et al 10/832,828 OWENS 103(a)
FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C.EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Shihadeh 11/098,153 COURTENAY 103(a)
LARSON NEWMAN & ABEL, LLP EXAMINER GIROUX, GEORGE

2175 Ex Parte Park 10/946,764 LUCAS 103(a)
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM,P.C. EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L

2192 Ex Parte Castellanos et al 10/865,464 DANG 102(e)/103(a)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Arun 10/444,270 BAUMEISTER 103(a)
General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LU, ZHIYU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Botefuhr et al 10/990,821 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

3761 Ex Parte Morman et al 10/730,364 PATE III 103(a)
DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

3728 Ex Parte Ross 11/156,239 O’NEILL 103(a)
WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

3763 Ex Parte Vaillancourt et al 10/320,168 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a)
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP. EXAMINER LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Donohue et al 10/500,005 COLAIANNI 103(a)
OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Brokenshire et al 10/763,079 COURTENAY 112(1)/101/102(e)
IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH

2444 Ex Parte Janik et al 11/113,571 LUCAS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a)
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDY

2483 Ex Parte Kubo et al 10/716,791 EASTHOM 103(a)
Douglas W. Cameron IBM Corporation EXAMINER WERNER, DAVID N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte McIntyre 10/705,307 McCARTHY 103(a)
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, TRI M

REISSUE

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1639 Ex Parte Prahl et al 11/102,886 LEBOVITZ 251 103(a)/112(1)/112(2)
GREENBERG TRAURIG (HOU) EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Heigl et al 11/489,733 HORNER 251
DAVID TOREN, ESQ. ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB EXAMINER BERHANU, SAMUEL

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Zheng et al 11/293,873 OWENS 102(b)/103(a)
SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

1734 Ex Parte Woodruff et al 10/376,261 PAK 103(a)/112(1)
KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1734 Ex Parte Quellhorst et al 10/987,998 COLAIANNI 103(a)
HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

1773 Ex Parte Schembri 10/285,756 FRANKLIN 102(e)/103(a)
Agilent Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A

1771 Ex Parte Huq et al 10/944,452 SMITH 103(a)
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER MCAVOY, ELLEN M

1798 Ex Parte Geohegan et al 11/037,578 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a)
UT-BATTELLE/CHICAGO/BHGL EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

1736 Ex Parte Bandyopadhyay et al 10/248,702 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a)
CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER VIJAYAKUMAR, KALLAMBELLA M

1782 Ex Parte Nomula 11/231,515 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a)
ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/154,854 JEFFERY 102(e)
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD EXAMINER DAVIS, ZACHARY A

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/160,481 MARTIN 101/112(1)/103(a)
PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Tomoyoshi 10/500,461 MacDONALD 103(a)
OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANG, AUDREY Y

2839 Ex Parte Law et al 11/881,969 ROBERTSON 102(b)
SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUONGCHI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Krumwiede et al 11/415,667 BAHR 103(a)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER RAMIREZ, RAMON O

3662 Ex Parte Lewandowski et al 10/814,956 TURNER 112(2)/103(a)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

3637 Ex Parte Paton-Ash et al 11/221,272 BARRETT 103(a)
ANSEL M. SCHWARTZ EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/146,565 O’NEILL 101/103(a)
PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Dewey et al 10/875,464 FRANKLIN 103(a)
MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER HAN, KWANG S

1741 Ex Parte Sasaki et al 10/492,604 OWENS 102(b)/103(a)
OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Presler-Marshall et al 10/794,940 BARRY 103(a)
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Balinsky et al 11/481,797 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER IWARERE, OLUSEYE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11/270,330 BAHR 103(a)
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Castaneda 11/179,139 JEFFERY 101/102(b)/103(a)
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LIANG, VEI CHUNG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte McLellan et al 11/196,652 LEE 102(b)/103(a)
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP EXAMINER RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Gluck 10/892,865 HORNER 102(b)/103(a)
BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. EXAMINER ROSS, DANA

To the extent that the definitions argued by Appellant (Br. 11) and provided by the Examiner (Ans. 12) are inconsistent with the definition provided in Appellant’s Specification, we rely upon the definition in Appellant’s Specification. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (when the intrinsic record is clear, we do not give weight to an inconsistent dictionary definition).

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex parte LUMINO DESIGNS, INC. 90/010,126 5,743,616 EASTHOM 102(b)
The Farrell Law Firm, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN H original EXAMINER CARIASO, ALAN B

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Xu 10/164,363 GRIMES 102(b)
ELI WEISS / OAKWOOD LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kumar 11/304,358 COURTENAY 103(a)
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2165 Ex Parte Bestgen et al 10/977,801 HOMERE 101/102(b)/103(a)
IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER VU, BAI D

2173 Ex Parte Roto et al 11/170,774 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a)
Perman & Green, LLP EXAMINER LEE, TING ZHOU

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Kaminsky et al 10/635,598 HOMERE 101/102(e)/103(a)
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C

“A machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result.” In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (quoting In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007), reh'g denied en banc, 515 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 70 (2008)).

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/114,786 MARTIN 101/112(1)/112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a)
PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Mimnagh-Kelleher et al 10/537,877 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a)
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR M

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Burckart et al 10/723,924 JEFFERY 103
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER MURRAY, DANIEL C

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/222,366 NAGUMO 103(a)
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

1762 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/222,362 OWENS 103(a)
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Griffen et al 11/121,027 HORNER 103(a)
VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3773 Ex Parte Jacobs et al 09/816,641 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

A structure may be expressed as one of several alternatives if those alternatives present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph; see also In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 724 (CCPA 1980). The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1958).

Harnisch, In re, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02, 2173.05(h)

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Nguyen-Kim et al 10/541,157 OWENS 103(a)
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER PEZZUTO, HELEN LEE

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/924,409 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a)
Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1713 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a)
THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER CHOI, LING SIU

Notice, Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Procedures, 75 Fed. Reg. 36,357 (June 25, 2010).

An argument made to the Office constitutes a disclaimer only if it is “clear and unmistakable.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An “ambiguous disavowal” will not suffice. Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Tamiya et al 10,469,046 GARRIS 103(a)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Dybsetter et al 10/814,392 JEFFERY 103(a)
Maschoff Gilmore & Israelsen EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Bates et al 10/879,920 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a)
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER CHAN, RICHARD

2627 Ex Parte Dovek et al 10/781,000 RUGGIERO 103(a)
SAILE ACKERMAN LLC EXAMINER KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Aoki 11/046,732 HAHN 103(a)
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, JOSEPH S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Garrett 10/838,529 BARRETT 103(a)
ROBERT GARRETT EXAMINER QUINN, COLLEEN M

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Wyrobek et al 11/528,296 GREEN 112(2)
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Hartlep et al 11/251,593 McCOLLUM 101 DON W. BULSON RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Jin et al 11/446,894 WALSH 103(a) PAUL A. LEIPOLD EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER AHVAZI, BIJAN

1726 Ex Parte Bednarz et al 10/506,386 HANLON 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER WANG, EUGENIA

1734 Ex Parte Dodd et al 10/455,067 KRATZ 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte SCHULZ 11/559,680 O’NEILL 103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/923,469 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Alavarez et al 10/235,924 BAUMEISTER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LI, ZHUO H

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Marquette et al 10/334,872 BAUMEISTER 102(e) HOLLAND & HART, LLP EXAMINER HONG, HARRY S

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/308,926 FREDMAN 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Fukui 10/767,780 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Weeda 10/852,494 O’NEILL 103(a) ROGER L. BELFAY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRINH T

Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, … would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich., Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. See W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . ” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

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)

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Mills et al 10/192,180 LEBOVITZ 103(a) REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. c/o MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3738 Ex Parte Schmieding 10/665,480 STAICOVICI 112(1)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Hartlep et al 11/251,597 McCOLLUM 101 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE

Where the invention is a process, the product resulting from that process must have utility in order for the process to have utility. Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966).

“The threshold of utility is not high: An invention is ‘useful’ under section 101 if it is capable of providing some identifiable benefit.” Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, section 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and specific. A substantial utility requires:

show[ing] that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id. In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an asserted use must also show that [the] claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02

Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 51 USPQ2d 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .706.03(a)

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Hunt et al 10/204,701 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Mukai et al 11/475,109 HOFF 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER LUO, DAVID S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Dovertie 10/905,161 BAHR 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3742 Ex Parte Nordberg et al 11/111,227 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROBERT B. NORDBERG EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Chalasani et al 10/301,074 LUCAS 101/102(a)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

The present state of the law is unsettled with respect to software. However, our guiding court has concluded that certain data structures are statutory subject matter when considered as “physical entities that provided increased efficiency in computer operations.” In re Lowry 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In a seemingly contrary conclusion, In re Warmerdam, the same court considered data structures as representing merely the “manipulation of ideas.”

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Loffler et al 10/363,864 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11/134,051 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Bogin et al 10/762,037 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUN, SCOTT C

2165 Ex Parte Chowdhuri et al 10/908,956 HOMERE 102(b) JOHN A. SMART EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK

2175 Ex Parte Tabi 10/896,501 STEPHENS 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Bramhall et al 10/122,759 STEPHENS 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Amizic et al 10/911,282 SAADAT 101/103(a) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER TORRES, JUAN A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte EGAWA 11/276,828 MacDONALD 103(a) RABIN & BERDO, PC EXAMINER WAGNER, JENNY L

REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/386,227 HOFF 112(1) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ANDERSON, GUY G

2883 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/386,212 HOFF 112(1) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ANDERSON, GUY G

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Paik et al 11/421,965 FRANKLIN 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

1731 Ex Parte Fuller et al 11/351,416 KRATZ 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Mehus et al 11/395,361 CRAWFORD 103(a) Brooks & Cameron, PLLC EXAMINER OJIAKU, CHIKAODINAKA

See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim).

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

In Spears, the two levels of benefits are never different, and thus the “communicating” step would impermissibly be rendered superfluous. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Walder et al 09/956,055 BAHR 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER PHILOGENE, PEDRO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Clater 11/321,649 CRAWFORD 103(a) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

Moreover, a teaching away requires disparagement. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[a]reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant”).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1761 Ex Parte Chan et al 10/783,729 SCHEINER 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

1798 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 11/285,454 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

It is the claims that define the invention and, therefore, the absence in the prior art of subject matter not included in the claims cannot be a basis for patentability. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).

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

Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.05

1762 Ex Parte Okubo et al 10/543,662 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S

1744 Ex Parte Sreenivasan et al 10/781278 GARRIS 102(b) U.T. Systems Board of Regents c/o MII EXAMINER LUK, EMMANUEL S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Svendsen et al 10/813,839 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W

2444 Ex Parte Woodard et al 10/683,564 NAPPI 103(a) ADVANTAGE LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,458 EASTHOM 103(a) McAndrews Held & Malloy, LTD EXAMINER LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Nathans et al 09/924,971 CRAWFORD 103(a) Franklin B. Levin, Esq. Pay Rent, Built Credit, Inc. EXAMINER TINKLER, MURIEL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/915,177 BAHR 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER CWERN, JONATHAN

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Pflugler et al 11/096,605 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Hellig et al 10/745,044 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Kamio et al 09/987,404 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

It is well settled that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Kulis et al 10/967,040 TIERNEY 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC EXAMINER BURCH, MELODY M

3616 Ex Parte Saieg et al 11/141,628 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER WILHELM, TIMOTHY

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Lipps et al 10/716,982 GRIMES 112(1) JOHN R. CASPERSON EXAMINER REDDIG, PETER J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Gupta 11/028,114 PAK nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1781 Ex Parte Andersen et al 10/529,137 HASTINGS 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

1733 Ex Parte Oishi et al 10/561,536 GAUDETTE 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER VELASQUEZ, VANESSA T

1728 Ex Parte Tsuge 09/788,339 GARRIS 103(a) NDQ&M WATCHSTONE LLP EXAMINER BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Mellinger et al 11/183,545 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FISHBURN, JOHN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Lowthert et al 09/766,133 MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER RAMAN, USHA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Abolfathi 10/137,725 TURNER 103(a) Beyer Law Group LLP EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL

3671 Ex Parte Berlin 11/541,626 STAICOVICI 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Stirm 12/283,260 LEE 103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Gunne et al 10/535,735 LEE 102(b) Crowell & Moring LLP EXAMINER HSIAO, JAMES K

3693 Ex Parte Atig 10/297,722 FETTING 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. HOLT EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S

3627 Ex Parte Shomper et al 11/489,312 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION, LAW DEPT. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Vu et al 10/907,807 BAHR 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, FANGEMONIQUE A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/037,574 MILLS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

“A whereby clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instuments v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . 716.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Buzzacarini et al 09/949,954 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Shirley 10/773,968 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2195 Ex Parte Novaes et al 10/443,079 LUCAS 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WAI, ERIC CHARLES

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Bolle et al 10/175,236 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

2442 Ex Parte Lyle et al 10/993,331 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.02, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2144.09, 2145

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Jayaram et al 11/053,774 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL

2611 Ex Parte Tramm et al 10/611,525 HAHN 103(a) TUROCY & WATSON, LLP EXAMINER PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Kumar et al 10/558,018 FRANKLIN 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Dee et al 10/990,609 SIU 102(b)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Biester 10/415,418 HORNER 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER PILKINGTON, JAMES

3671 Ex Parte Hall et al 11/075,896 O’NEILL 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Brud et al 10/737,101 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

Consistent with the principle that all limitations in a claim must be considered to be meaningful, it is improper to rely on the same structure in the Rönnberg reference as being responsive to two different elements (first and second attachment members) in claims 1, 43, and 44. See, Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Crabtree 11/552,397 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) FREUDENBERG-NOK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP EXAMINER SCHWARTZ, CHRISTOPHER P

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS, Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/344,426 WALSH 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

1793 Ex Parte Collins et al 11/838,638 MARTIN 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, NGOCLAN THI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Semerdzhiev 10/846,098 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Lessmoellmann et al 10/408,755 FETTING 101/103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Fremantle et al 10/402,185 LUCAS 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER ISMAIL, SHAWKI SAIF

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte OLIVER et al 09/036,236 MOHANTY 112(6) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EXAMINER DUNHAM, JASON B