REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Berggren et al 11/510,105 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER DUTT, ADITI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Park et al 10/854,942 FRANKLIN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Lofgren et al 10/435,612 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) Foley & Lardner LLP EXAMINER CALLAHAN, PAUL E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/928,641 PATE III 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

Thus, the only evidence of record for what the Examiner purports to be a well-known reason for making the modifications proposed is found in Appellants’ own Specification. Using the invention as a template for its own reconstruction is “an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1553).

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)

3622 Ex Parte Kaiwa et al 10/070,331 LORIN 103(a) NTT DoCoMo Inc/BHGL EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lewis et al 11/057,004 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) Douglas H. Pauley
Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER SINGH, KAVEL

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,107 6,520,847 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER SHANLEY, DANIEL G

3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,106 5,921,855 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,109 6,824,455 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER MCDONALD, SHANTESE L

3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,108 6,699,115 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER SHANLEY, DANIEL G

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2822 Ex parte i2 Technologies, US, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,645 5,930,645 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner Booth Udall, PLC Third Party Requester Paul A. Harrity Harrity Snyder LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER GUERRERO, MARIA F

Appellant cites TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and argues that “corroboration is required of any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent.” (App. Br. 55). However, in TypeRight Keyboard Corp., as opposed to the present case, the court found doubts as to the credibility of the testimony of witnesses because “the . . . document itself is undated,” “the testimony itself is somewhat tentative,” there was a “discrepancy in the file date” for which a witness failed to “determine whether his recollection was correct,” and the author of the document “filed two patent applications . . . for similar keyboards (which arguably would not have been proper if the . . . document was publicly distributed).” TypeRight Keyboard Corp., 374 F.3d at 1158. In the present case, Appellant has not raised any specific doubts as to the credibility of the evidence. For example, the Insight reference is dated (1983), Appellant has not argued that statements made by Roberts are “tentative” or that there is any discrepancy in the date of the reference or any other aspect of the reference and statements made regarding the cited reference.

2763 Ex parte i2 Technologies, US, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,630 5,764,543 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner Booth Udall, PLC Third Party Requester Paul A. Harrity Harrity Snyder LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER TRANS, VINCENT N

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Odenike 11/281,666 MILLS 103(a) ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Debe et al 11/248,441 GARRIS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER FORREST, MICHAEL

1745 Ex Parte Kuenzel et al 10/354,374 PAK 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

"In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement" under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977). As stated in In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356 (CCPA 1973):

[T]here has to be a continuous chain of copending applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed. There must be continuing disclosure through the chain of applications, without hiatus, to ultimately secure the benefit of the earliest filing date. [(Emphasis added; citations omitted.)]

The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, requires that each application in the chain leading back to the earliest application relied upon must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention” of the present application. See, e.g., Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008), “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added; original emphasis not reproduced). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter.” Id.

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124, 2164.05(a)

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

1715 Ex Parte Yabe et al 10/576,230 GAUDETTE 103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Bridger 11/004,146 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Garcia 10/977,606 HORNER 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E