REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Wynn et al 10/697,546 WALSH 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tsai et al 10/690,856 MacDONALD 102(b) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Banerjee et al 09/909,248 ROBERTSON 103(a)/112(2) 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Patent Administrator EXAMINER BRIER, JEFFERY A

Adequate disclosure for a section 112, sixth paragraph claim “for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Aristocrat Tech. Inc. v Inter. Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotations omitted). As the Federal Circuit recently noted, “[t]he key inquiry is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the patent to disclose structure that sufficiently corresponds to the claimed function, which in the case of a specific function implemented on a general purpose computer requires an algorithm.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, Nos. 2009-1450, 2009-1451, 2009-1452, 2009-1468, 2009-1469, 2010-1017, 2011 WL 607381, at *8 (Fed. Cir. February 18, 2011) (citing Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337). Thus, the Federal Circuit clarified in Katz, that an algorithm is only required in the context of means-plus-function claims in which a computer must be specially programmed to perform the recited function. In re Katz, 2011 WL 607381, *8.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Cheng et al 10/906,808 MacDONALD 103(a) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

2837 Ex Parte Degertekin 11/068,005 MacDONALD 103(a) TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP EXAMINER ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

2834 Ex Parte Hatano et al 11/474,958 SAADAT 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER TAMAI, KARL I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Bush 10/294,316 MOHANTY 101/103(a) Woodard, Emhardt, Naughton,
Moriarty and McNett LLP EXAMINER ALTSCHUL, AMBER L

3652 Ex Parte Epp et al 11/098,617 O’NEILL 103(a) ADE & COMPANY INC. EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

3643 Ex Parte Eriksson 10/480,435 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Falahee 10/979,021 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Murphy 10/770,403 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hadba et al 11/123,690 ADAMS 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Li et al 09/664,226 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP EXAMINER COLBERT, ELLA

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3728 MEADWESTVACO PACKAGING SYSTEMS, LLC Requester I and GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester II v. Patent of C. BROWN LINGAMFELTER Patent Owner 95/000,066 95/000,069 6,789,673 SONG 103(a) Daniel. D. Chapman, Esq. JACKSON WALKER, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2304 Ex parte Ricoh Company, Ltd., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,879, 90/007,945 & 90/009,094 4,922,432 TURNER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER TRANS, VINCENT N

With respect to reports generated and distributed within an organization, we have found previously that where there was evidence that all members of the organization understood a policy of confidentiality regarding research reports, where such reports were distributed according to that policy, and where there was no evidence of actual dissemination beyond the membership prior to the critical date, such reports are not considered to be printed publications as specified under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In re George, 1987 WL 123831 at *2 (BPAI 1987).

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Frisch et al 11/238,739 WALSH 103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP / WYETH LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Varatharaja 11/302,658 FRANKLIN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Kennedy 10/650,394 JEFFERY 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/879,401 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT CO., L.P. EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Choi et al 10/136,584 LORIN 103(a) WILLIAMS MULLEN EXAMINER PATEL, NIRAV B

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Boldon 10/345,868 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

2625 Ex Parte Horii 11/391,059 NAPPI 103(a) REED SMITH LLP EXAMINER WASHINGTON, JAMARES

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Bender 11/243,050 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER
VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA