REVERSED
06/01/2011 1716 Ex Parte Lenz 12/078,349 OWENS 102(b) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN
05/31/2011 1724 Ex Parte Shiota et al 10/436,479 SMITH 103(a) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER VAN, LUAN V
05/25/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gao et al 10/566,248 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A
05/31/2011 2154 Ex Parte Djugash et al 10/865,261 STEPHENS 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J
05/31/2011 2182 Ex Parte Brune et al 10/399,272 MacDONALD 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO
06/01/2011 2424 Ex Parte Li et al 10/404,288 SAADAT 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R
05/31/2011 2813 Ex Parte Ong et al 11/782,812 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN
05/31/2011 3752 Ex Parte Franson et al 11/266,973 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D
05/31/2011 3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/020,844 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
05/31/2011 1777 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/786,707 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER FORTUNA, ANA M
06/02/2011 2443 Ex Parte Raikar et al 10/632,446 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H
05/31/2011 2612 Ex Parte Andreasson et al 10/980,040 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC
05/25/2011 2618 Ex Parte Marsden et al 10/145,665 RUGGIERO 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
06/01/2011 2618 Ex Parte Vance 10/709,345 FRAHM 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU
05/25/2011 3628 Ex Parte Alexia et al 10/809,570 PETRAVICK 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
06/01/2011 3661 Ex Parte Bossler et al 10/869,685 KAUFFMAN 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER LOUIE, WAE LENNY
05/20/2011 3684 Ex Parte Zommers 11/245,229 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 The Marbury Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
05/23/2011 3691 Ex Parte Zieger et al 10/331,149 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER TINKLER, MURIEL S
05/31/2011 3736 Ex Parte Hogg et al 10/674,914 KAUFFMAN 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q
AFFIRMED
06/02/2011 1648 Ex Parte Ertl et al 10/480,793 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP EXAMINER HILL, MYRON G
05/25/2011 1716 Ex Parte Hichri et al 11/160,671 HANLON 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
05/31/2011 1747 Ex Parte Eibeck et al 11/815,723 COLAIANNI 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H
05/31/2011 1782 Ex Parte Bertolino et al 11/203,318 PAK 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C
05/12/2011 2183 Ex Parte Huppenthal 10/340,400 POTHIER 103(a) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J
06/02/2011 2857 Ex Parte Jacobson 11/467,692 WHITEHEAD, JR. Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER BHAT, ADITYA S
05/31/2011 3623 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/273,679 TURNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R
05/25/2011 3628 Ex Parte Braun et al 11/642,008 LORIN 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIEH
05/20/2011 3728 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/056,642 McCARTHY 102(e)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP PACTIV CORPORATION EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM
06/01/2011 1653 Ex Parte Knize 11/387,291 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEN, BIN
05/23/2011 2887 Ex Parte Mascavage et al 11/105,167 BAUMEISTER 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WALSH, DANIEL I
06/01/2011 1747 Ex Parte Maziers 11/597,227 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL
05/23/2011 3644 Ex Parte McCoskey et al 10/226,922 BAHR 103(a) HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG
06/02/2011 2179 Ex Parte Monteleone 10/410,820 DANG 102(b) JACK SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA
05/23/2011 2456 Ex Parte Morris 11/118,882 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M
05/31/2011 1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 10/750,390 MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V
05/31/2011 2858 Ex Parte Philbrook 11/207,419 HOFF 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER PIGGUSH, AARON C
06/02/2011 2478 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/244,104 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
05/31/2011 3686 Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,024 FISCHETTI 103(a) ERIC B. MEYERTONS CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D
05/23/2011 1787 Ex Parte Younes et al 11/264,890 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER FREEMAN, JOHN D
05/31/2011 2438 Ex Parte Zuk et al 10/072,683 LUCAS 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER ARANI, TAGHI T
REHEARING
GRANTED affirmed in part
05/20/2011 2829 Ex Parte Iizuka et al 11/637,147 NAPPI 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MAI, ANH D
REMANDED
05/25/2011 3694 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/342,368 SHAW KELLER LAPUMA WOODARD PC - IV EXAMINER SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z
05/19/2011 2625 Ex Parte Nakajima 10/941,849 BARTLETT OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HON, MING Y
VACATED
05/23/2011 1765 Ex Parte Barksby et al 11/125,443 TORCZON 101/102(e) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A
DISMISSED
05/03/2011 1729 Ex Parte Ahluwalia 11/087,354 SHAW FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA
05/10/2011 1798 Ex Parte Bevan 10/494,475 SHAW KOPPEL, PATRICK, HEYBL & PHILPOTT EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
05/16/2011 1628 Ex Parte Choonara et al 11/288,035 JORDAN HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER RICCI, CRAIG D
05/25/2011 1613 Ex Parte Curatolo et al 10/458,840 JORDAN CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M
05/06/2011 1635 Ex Parte Esau et al 11/513,102 JORDAN Pepper Hamilton LLP EXAMINER
SHIN, DANA H
05/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Gould 09/947,196 JORDAN HEINZ GRETHER PC G2 Technology Law EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
05/23/2011 2156 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/063,469 JORDAN PATENT GROUP 2N JONES DAY EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I
05/29/2011 2628 Ex Parte ZIMMER et al 11/696,619 BARTLETT EXAMINER CHU, DAVID H WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI LLP
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
hafner, rasmusson, beattie, gershon, kubin
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Maurer et al 11/629,751 SMITH 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Johnston et al 10/877,903 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Poyhonen et al 10/898,726 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG
2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10/074,765 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EXAMINER VO, TUNG T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Cogar et al 11/152,884 PETRAVICK 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER DENISSE ORTIZ ROMAN
3632 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/532,370 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Wallace et al 10/744,853 BAHR 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P
Initially, we note that the standard for what constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under section 112. In In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1405 (CCPA 1969). A disclosure lacking a teaching of how to use a fully disclosed invention for a specific, substantial utility is, under the present state of the law, entirely adequate to anticipate a claim. See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Hafner, In re, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ 783 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.11
Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
3695 Ex Parte Nalbandian et al 10/206,894 LORIN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BAIRD, EDWARD J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Lauterjung 10/832,159 STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Warmerdam et al 10/516,663 PAK 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
See also In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some [reason,] motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”)
Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967) (“We think it is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, although an underlying explanation of exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the expected superior beneficial results, is not taught or suggested in the cited references.”); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Even if no prior art of record explicitly discusses the [limitation], [applicant’s] application itself instructs that [the limitation] is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims on the [claimed invention], but rather a property necessarily present in [the claimed invention]”).
Beattie, In re, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(c), 2145
Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f), 2145, 2258
Gershon, In re, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(c), 716.04
(appealed) Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 11/285,454 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
NEW
REVERSED
1712 Ex Parte Blonigan et al 11/425,679 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER MILLER, MICHAEL G
2437 Ex Parte Carroll 10/710,491 HAHN 102(e)/112(2)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Patent Venture Group EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2457 Ex Parte Krawetz 10/159,093 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALENCOURT, YVES
AFFIRMED
3627 Ex Parte Buckman et al 09/875,639 CRAWFORD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY
1776 Ex Parte DE BUSSY et al 11/959,734 SMITH 102(b) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
1736 Ex Parte Hilgendorff et al 11/564,494 GARRIS 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J
REHEARING
DENIED
1627 Ex Parte Smith 10/294,509 WALSH HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Maurer et al 11/629,751 SMITH 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Johnston et al 10/877,903 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Poyhonen et al 10/898,726 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG
2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10/074,765 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EXAMINER VO, TUNG T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Cogar et al 11/152,884 PETRAVICK 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER DENISSE ORTIZ ROMAN
3632 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/532,370 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Wallace et al 10/744,853 BAHR 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P
Initially, we note that the standard for what constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under section 112. In In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1405 (CCPA 1969). A disclosure lacking a teaching of how to use a fully disclosed invention for a specific, substantial utility is, under the present state of the law, entirely adequate to anticipate a claim. See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Hafner, In re, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ 783 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.11
Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
3695 Ex Parte Nalbandian et al 10/206,894 LORIN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BAIRD, EDWARD J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Lauterjung 10/832,159 STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Warmerdam et al 10/516,663 PAK 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
See also In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some [reason,] motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”)
Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967) (“We think it is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, although an underlying explanation of exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the expected superior beneficial results, is not taught or suggested in the cited references.”); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Even if no prior art of record explicitly discusses the [limitation], [applicant’s] application itself instructs that [the limitation] is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims on the [claimed invention], but rather a property necessarily present in [the claimed invention]”).
Beattie, In re, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(c), 2145
Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f), 2145, 2258
Gershon, In re, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(c), 716.04
(appealed) Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 11/285,454 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
NEW
REVERSED
1712 Ex Parte Blonigan et al 11/425,679 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER MILLER, MICHAEL G
2437 Ex Parte Carroll 10/710,491 HAHN 102(e)/112(2)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Patent Venture Group EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2457 Ex Parte Krawetz 10/159,093 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALENCOURT, YVES
AFFIRMED
3627 Ex Parte Buckman et al 09/875,639 CRAWFORD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY
1776 Ex Parte DE BUSSY et al 11/959,734 SMITH 102(b) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
1736 Ex Parte Hilgendorff et al 11/564,494 GARRIS 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J
REHEARING
DENIED
1627 Ex Parte Smith 10/294,509 WALSH HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A
Friday, May 27, 2011
harza, e-pass, curry, mathias
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10/845,068 COLAIANNI 103(a) WILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC. C/O WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Vera 11/244,946 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER WU, YICUN
2161 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/943,054 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BIBBEE, JARED M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Boer et al 10/672,657 KRIVAK 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/580,592 ASTORINO 102(b) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Balthes et al 10/287,250 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Boccasam et al 11/244,060 FISCHETTI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Steven P. Arnheim Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Rippolone 10/787,429 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V
The Examiner relies on In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) to provide reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bortugno’s system to duplicate parts. (Id.). The Examiner does not analogize the facts in Harza to the facts in this appeal.
The Appellant contends the “reasoning for duplication of parts does not apply.” (App. Br. 7). In Harza, the court held that “[i]t is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.” Harza , 274 F.2d at 671 (italics added). The Appellant points out that the three gutter sections recited in claims 7 and 8 “are different and not duplicates.” (Id.).
...
These modifications are far beyond the holding in Harza, which is limited to a mere duplication of parts.
Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3685 Ex Parte Cihula 10/746,077 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAWRENCE CHO ATTORNEY AT LAW C/O CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kast et al 10/836,127 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER
LAM, ANN Y
1745 Ex Parte Stull et al 11/157,004 WARREN 103(a) Integrated Turf Solutions, LLC EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A
1767 Ex Parte Good et al 10/968,658 COLAIANNI 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
1716 Ex Parte Mikhaylichenko et al 10/816,487 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
1796 Ex Parte Adkins et al 10/687,156 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11/398,138 DANG 102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Zafar et al 10/717,242 KOHUT 102(e) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER GESESSE, TILAHUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 10/365,088 GAY ANN SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WM. CATES RAMBO EXAMINER SILBERMANN, JOANNE
3621 Ex parte MILLER 10/192,185 PETRAVICK 103(a) Edwin H. Taylor BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (“The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”). We decline to read the three criteria argued by the Appellant into the claims.
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . .2106, 2111.01
See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention. Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
3633 Ex Parte Broad et al 10/871,401 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, ADRIANA
3686 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 10/337,132 FISCHETTI 103(a) Alexander J. Burke Siemens Corporation EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 10/749,871 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
REHEARING
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 11/517,723 McCARTHY 102(b) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER BUCKLE JR, JAMES J
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG
NEW
REVERSED
3781 Ex Parte Borowski et al 11/039,426 STAICOVICI 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N
1785 Ex Parte Burch et al 11/796,639 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
1777 Ex Parte Kraft 11/873,117 NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2612 Ex Parte Batra et al 11/423,411 DROESCH 103(a) Zilka-Kotab, PC EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY
AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Apffel 11/580,857 COLAIANNI 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 10/813,760 WALSH 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S
1731 Ex Parte Braganca et al 10/518,443 WARREN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,829 LORIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL
REHEARING
3654 Ex Parte Meckler 10/794,872 O’NEILL HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER HAUGLAND, SCOTT J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10/845,068 COLAIANNI 103(a) WILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC. C/O WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Vera 11/244,946 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER WU, YICUN
2161 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/943,054 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BIBBEE, JARED M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Boer et al 10/672,657 KRIVAK 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/580,592 ASTORINO 102(b) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Balthes et al 10/287,250 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Boccasam et al 11/244,060 FISCHETTI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Steven P. Arnheim Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Rippolone 10/787,429 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V
The Examiner relies on In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) to provide reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bortugno’s system to duplicate parts. (Id.). The Examiner does not analogize the facts in Harza to the facts in this appeal.
The Appellant contends the “reasoning for duplication of parts does not apply.” (App. Br. 7). In Harza, the court held that “[i]t is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.” Harza , 274 F.2d at 671 (italics added). The Appellant points out that the three gutter sections recited in claims 7 and 8 “are different and not duplicates.” (Id.).
...
These modifications are far beyond the holding in Harza, which is limited to a mere duplication of parts.
Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3685 Ex Parte Cihula 10/746,077 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAWRENCE CHO ATTORNEY AT LAW C/O CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kast et al 10/836,127 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER
LAM, ANN Y
1745 Ex Parte Stull et al 11/157,004 WARREN 103(a) Integrated Turf Solutions, LLC EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A
1767 Ex Parte Good et al 10/968,658 COLAIANNI 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
1716 Ex Parte Mikhaylichenko et al 10/816,487 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
1796 Ex Parte Adkins et al 10/687,156 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11/398,138 DANG 102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Zafar et al 10/717,242 KOHUT 102(e) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER GESESSE, TILAHUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 10/365,088 GAY ANN SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WM. CATES RAMBO EXAMINER SILBERMANN, JOANNE
3621 Ex parte MILLER 10/192,185 PETRAVICK 103(a) Edwin H. Taylor BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (“The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”). We decline to read the three criteria argued by the Appellant into the claims.
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . .2106, 2111.01
See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention. Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
3633 Ex Parte Broad et al 10/871,401 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, ADRIANA
3686 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 10/337,132 FISCHETTI 103(a) Alexander J. Burke Siemens Corporation EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 10/749,871 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
REHEARING
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 11/517,723 McCARTHY 102(b) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER BUCKLE JR, JAMES J
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG
NEW
REVERSED
3781 Ex Parte Borowski et al 11/039,426 STAICOVICI 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N
1785 Ex Parte Burch et al 11/796,639 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
1777 Ex Parte Kraft 11/873,117 NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2612 Ex Parte Batra et al 11/423,411 DROESCH 103(a) Zilka-Kotab, PC EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY
AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Apffel 11/580,857 COLAIANNI 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 10/813,760 WALSH 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S
1731 Ex Parte Braganca et al 10/518,443 WARREN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,829 LORIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL
REHEARING
3654 Ex Parte Meckler 10/794,872 O’NEILL HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER HAUGLAND, SCOTT J
Thursday, May 26, 2011
all dental, orthokinetics, datamize, cohn, johnson, gardner, miller, borkowski
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Gale 11/841,789 McCOLLUM Concurring ADAMS 103(a) Samuel E.Webb STOEL ROVES LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1615 Ex Parte Koenig et al 10/836,449 ADAMS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S
1634 Ex Parte Barrett et al 11/400,481 ADAMS 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BHAT, NARAYAN KAMESHWAR
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Oommen 10/890,340 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 10/696,626 FRAHM 103(a) Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC EXAMINER WONG, LINDA
2624 Ex Parte Hasegawa 11/260,276 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER RAHMJOO, MANUCHER
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Yuan 11/099,460 RUGGIERO 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LUU, AN T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nusbaum et al 11/103,884 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
3761 Ex Parte Jensen 11/049,047 O’NEILL 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L
3773 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11/221,559 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER OU, JING RUI
3784 Ex Parte Fry 11/049,391 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Warren C. Fry EXAMINER RAHIM, AZIM
The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). In addition, if the claims are inherently inconsistent with the description, definitions, and examples appearing in the specification, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is likewise appropriate. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971).
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . 2173.05(b)Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Akers 11/626,473 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J
Nevertheless, as correctly pointed out by Appellant on page 16 of the Appeal Brief, merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is necessarily indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)
Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1761 LEPRINO FOODS CO. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LAND O’ LAKES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,003 90/006,317 6,319,526 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND & TOWNSEND & CREW, LLP EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L original EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
To establish an actual reduction of practice, the patent owner has the burden of demonstrating that the method reduced to practice includes all the elements of the claimed method (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 715.07 & 2185.05, Eighth Edition (August 2001), revised July 2010). See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718-19 (CCPA 1974).
Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2132 Ex parte TSE Ho Keung Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,772 6,665,797 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HO KEUNG TSE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 11/506,137 MILLS dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER
ARNOLD, ERNST V
1615 Ex Parte Moore et al 11/287,653 ADAMS 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T
1616 Ex Parte Hovey et al 10/768,194 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M
1617 Ex Parte Bruins et al 10/535,108 ADAMS 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10/925,904 GREEN 101/102(b) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER LIN, JERRY
1651 Ex Parte Poo et al 10/410,954 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Gregory A. Nelson Novak Druce & Quigg LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K
1655 Ex Parte Malnoe et al 10/607,330 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A
1655 Ex Parte Nagasawa 11/234,222 NAGUMO 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Ludewig et al 11/512,487 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S
1796 Ex Parte Dvorchak et al 12/117,827 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/245,229 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Yarbrough 11/211,012 KIM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Dosmann 10/367,690 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
3753 Ex Parte Watts et al 10/775,033 LEE 102/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Rees 10/722,648 PATE III 103(a) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
NEW
REVERSED
3754 Ex Parte McBroom et al 11/228,000 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER
3637 Ex Parte Schneider 11/656,730 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER RODDEN, JOSHUA E
3694 Ex Parte Usher et al 09/858,844 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) INNOVATION DIVISION CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3745 Ex Parte Hetherington et al 11/355,032 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D
3774 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,794 GRIMES 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
2477 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,113 FRAHM 102(e)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A
AFFIRMED
2456 Ex Parte Barrett 10/887,971 ZECHER 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FAN, HUA
3754 Ex Parte Johnston 11/374,563 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Scott E. Johnston EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F
2889 Ex Parte Seichter et al 10/771,378 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) Viering, Jentschura & Partner - OSR EXAMINER QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J
3775 Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
REHEARING
DENIED
3762 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Gale 11/841,789 McCOLLUM Concurring ADAMS 103(a) Samuel E.Webb STOEL ROVES LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1615 Ex Parte Koenig et al 10/836,449 ADAMS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S
1634 Ex Parte Barrett et al 11/400,481 ADAMS 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BHAT, NARAYAN KAMESHWAR
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Oommen 10/890,340 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 10/696,626 FRAHM 103(a) Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC EXAMINER WONG, LINDA
2624 Ex Parte Hasegawa 11/260,276 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER RAHMJOO, MANUCHER
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Yuan 11/099,460 RUGGIERO 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LUU, AN T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nusbaum et al 11/103,884 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
3761 Ex Parte Jensen 11/049,047 O’NEILL 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L
3773 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11/221,559 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER OU, JING RUI
3784 Ex Parte Fry 11/049,391 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Warren C. Fry EXAMINER RAHIM, AZIM
The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). In addition, if the claims are inherently inconsistent with the description, definitions, and examples appearing in the specification, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is likewise appropriate. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971).
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . 2173.05(b)Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Akers 11/626,473 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J
Nevertheless, as correctly pointed out by Appellant on page 16 of the Appeal Brief, merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is necessarily indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)
Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1761 LEPRINO FOODS CO. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LAND O’ LAKES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,003 90/006,317 6,319,526 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND & TOWNSEND & CREW, LLP EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L original EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
To establish an actual reduction of practice, the patent owner has the burden of demonstrating that the method reduced to practice includes all the elements of the claimed method (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 715.07 & 2185.05, Eighth Edition (August 2001), revised July 2010). See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718-19 (CCPA 1974).
Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2132 Ex parte TSE Ho Keung Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,772 6,665,797 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HO KEUNG TSE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 11/506,137 MILLS dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER
ARNOLD, ERNST V
1615 Ex Parte Moore et al 11/287,653 ADAMS 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T
1616 Ex Parte Hovey et al 10/768,194 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M
1617 Ex Parte Bruins et al 10/535,108 ADAMS 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10/925,904 GREEN 101/102(b) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER LIN, JERRY
1651 Ex Parte Poo et al 10/410,954 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Gregory A. Nelson Novak Druce & Quigg LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K
1655 Ex Parte Malnoe et al 10/607,330 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A
1655 Ex Parte Nagasawa 11/234,222 NAGUMO 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Ludewig et al 11/512,487 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S
1796 Ex Parte Dvorchak et al 12/117,827 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/245,229 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Yarbrough 11/211,012 KIM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Dosmann 10/367,690 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
3753 Ex Parte Watts et al 10/775,033 LEE 102/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Rees 10/722,648 PATE III 103(a) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
NEW
REVERSED
3754 Ex Parte McBroom et al 11/228,000 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER
3637 Ex Parte Schneider 11/656,730 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER RODDEN, JOSHUA E
3694 Ex Parte Usher et al 09/858,844 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) INNOVATION DIVISION CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3745 Ex Parte Hetherington et al 11/355,032 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D
3774 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,794 GRIMES 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
2477 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,113 FRAHM 102(e)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A
AFFIRMED
2456 Ex Parte Barrett 10/887,971 ZECHER 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FAN, HUA
3754 Ex Parte Johnston 11/374,563 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Scott E. Johnston EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F
2889 Ex Parte Seichter et al 10/771,378 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) Viering, Jentschura & Partner - OSR EXAMINER QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J
3775 Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
REHEARING
DENIED
3762 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
reiffin, rasmussen
REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Stacey et al 10/539,286 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H
1796 Ex Parte Okabe et al 10/739,122 HASTINGS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A
Whether the inventor has provided adequate written description, either explicitly or inherently, must be determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because “that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment.” In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id.
Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
2187 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/881,057 JEFFERY 102(b) Kenton R. Mullins Stout , Uxa, Buyan & Mullins, LLP EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Maier et al 10/838,406 WINSOR 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOA CAO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Lyons 10/704,678 ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/102(e) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C
2482 Ex Parte Liu 10/603,428 HOFF 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Shen 11/477,203 KIM 101/112(2)/103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
2100 Computer Architecture and Software2162 Ex Parte Shahabi et al 10/310,667 STEPHENS 102(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) EXAMINER LY, ANH
2600 Communications2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 10/899,865 HAHN 101/102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HSU, JONI
3782 Ex Parte Daves 10/986,484 SPAHN 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER SKURDAL, COREY NELSON
NEW
REVERSED
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 10/675,823 DIXON 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
3768 Ex Parte Byron 10/559,213 STAICOVICI 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER BOR, HELENE CATHERINE
2163 Ex Parte Cookson et al 10/748,442 BARRY 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M
3711 Ex Parte Gamble 11/398,408 ASTORINO 103(a) DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T
3665 Ex Parte Pando 11/026,948 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER ALSOMIRI, ISAM A
AFFIRMED
1716 Ex Parte Hichri et al 11/160,671 HANLON 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
2611 Ex Parte Trutna et al 10/733,675 FRAHM 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER AGHDAM, FRESHTEH N
2114 Ex Parte Vecoven 10/417,812 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER SCHELL, JOSEPH O
3767 Ex Parte Woodburn et al 11/368,131 HOELTER 103(a) McKeon Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Stacey et al 10/539,286 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H
1796 Ex Parte Okabe et al 10/739,122 HASTINGS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A
Whether the inventor has provided adequate written description, either explicitly or inherently, must be determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When the original written description describes something within the scope of the claim, the Examiner must do more than point out the difference in scope. This is so because “that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment.” In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981). There are instances in which a narrower disclosure can support broader claims. Id.
Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Burger et al 10/675,266 HOMERE 103(a) Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation EXAMINERBETIT, JACOB F2187 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/881,057 JEFFERY 102(b) Kenton R. Mullins Stout , Uxa, Buyan & Mullins, LLP EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Maier et al 10/838,406 WINSOR 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOA CAO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Lyons 10/704,678 ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/102(e) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C
2482 Ex Parte Liu 10/603,428 HOFF 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Shen 11/477,203 KIM 101/112(2)/103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software2162 Ex Parte Shahabi et al 10/310,667 STEPHENS 102(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) EXAMINER LY, ANH
2600 Communications2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 10/899,865 HAHN 101/102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HSU, JONI
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Knetsch et al 10/835,487 GREENHUT 103(a) ROBERT W. BECKER & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER TRAN, DIEM T 3782 Ex Parte Daves 10/986,484 SPAHN 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER SKURDAL, COREY NELSON
NEW
REVERSED
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 10/675,823 DIXON 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
3768 Ex Parte Byron 10/559,213 STAICOVICI 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER BOR, HELENE CATHERINE
2163 Ex Parte Cookson et al 10/748,442 BARRY 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M
3711 Ex Parte Gamble 11/398,408 ASTORINO 103(a) DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T
3665 Ex Parte Pando 11/026,948 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER ALSOMIRI, ISAM A
AFFIRMED
1716 Ex Parte Hichri et al 11/160,671 HANLON 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
2611 Ex Parte Trutna et al 10/733,675 FRAHM 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER AGHDAM, FRESHTEH N
2114 Ex Parte Vecoven 10/417,812 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER SCHELL, JOSEPH O
3767 Ex Parte Woodburn et al 11/368,131 HOELTER 103(a) McKeon Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Van Antwerp et al 10/936,390 FREDMAN 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Saegusa et al 10/480,318 FRANKLIN 103(a)/102(b) Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione EXAMINER EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI
1792 Ex Parte LEYENDECKER et al 11/781,053 SMITH 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
1798 Ex Parte Stadelman et al 11/011,439 WARREN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER STEELE, JENNIFER A
1798 Ex Parte Weiser 11/297,022 SMITH 103(a) Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Dimpsey et al 10/806,871 LUCAS 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Peterson 11/560,104 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Asthana et al 10/210,746 SMITH 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Ravi et al 10/857,057 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER DUONG, KHANH B
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3671 Ex parte TEXTRON INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/008,547 6,047,530 SONG 103(a) Patent Owner: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Third Party Requestor James W. Miller EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Carter et al 11/480,360 FREDMAN 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER ANDERSON, JAMES D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Urtel et al 10/588,948 GAUDETTE 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B
1764 Ex Parte Heltovics et al 11/476,533 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KHAN, AMINA S
1781 Ex Parte Haung et al 10/741,502 SMITH 103(a) Solae, LLC EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Hartwich 10/489,524 HOMERE 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN
2175 Ex Parte McKeon et al 10/868,248 LUCAS 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER LONG, ANDREA NATAE
2187 Ex Parte Dinechin et al 11/020,432 DANG 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Risan et al 10/364,643 BARRY 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMIN E MEDIA RIGHTS TECHNOLOGIES C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
2437 Ex Parte Romain et al 10/467,698 THOMAS 103(a) Christopher F Regan Allen Dyer Doppelt Milbrath & Gilchrist EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L
2465 Ex Parte Bitar et al 10/838,782 WINSOR 103(a) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER HSU, ALPUS
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Berens et al 10/830,420 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A. EXAMINER FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS
2613 Ex Parte Bickham et al 10/837,867 WINSOR 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER SINGH, DALZID E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Wegryn 11/123,616 SAINDON 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
NEW
REVERSED
2164 Ex Parte Hacigumus et al 10/850,703 JEFFERY 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER ORTIZ, BELIX M
1767 Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/566,248 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A SALVITTI, MICHAEL A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2618 Ex Parte Marsden et al 10/145,665 RUGGIERO 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
AFFIRMED
2832 Ex Parte Brenner et al 10/893,652 RUGGIERO 101 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER DONELS, JEFFREY
3682 Ex Parte Hensen et al 10/123,360 LORIN 101/102(e) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L
3629 Ex Parte Patterson et al 10/767,356 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SENSENIG, SHAUN D
2453 Ex Parte Zimler et al 10/918,029 COURTENAY 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
REHEARING
DENIED
2617 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/160,481 RUGGIERO 112(2)/103(a)/101 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
GRANTED-IN-PART
1615 Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/349,743 PRATS 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S
NEW
REVERSED
2164 Ex Parte Hacigumus et al 10/850,703 JEFFERY 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER ORTIZ, BELIX M
1767 Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/566,248 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A SALVITTI, MICHAEL A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2618 Ex Parte Marsden et al 10/145,665 RUGGIERO 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
AFFIRMED
2832 Ex Parte Brenner et al 10/893,652 RUGGIERO 101 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER DONELS, JEFFREY
3682 Ex Parte Hensen et al 10/123,360 LORIN 101/102(e) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L
3629 Ex Parte Patterson et al 10/767,356 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SENSENIG, SHAUN D
2453 Ex Parte Zimler et al 10/918,029 COURTENAY 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T
REHEARING
DENIED
2617 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/160,481 RUGGIERO 112(2)/103(a)/101 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
GRANTED-IN-PART
1615 Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/349,743 PRATS 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S
Monday, May 23, 2011
REVERSED
1643 Ex Parte Allison et al 10/854,000 ADAMS 112(2)/101/112(1) ARNOLD & PORTER EXAMINER RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L
3777 Ex Parte Creighton et al 10/674,667 GREEN 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO
1741 Ex Parte Kokko 10/650,737 TIMM 103(a) Georgia-Pacific LLC EXAMINER CORDRAY, DENNIS R
1649 Ex Parte Morrison et al 10/640,914 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER WANG, CHANG YU
1741 Ex Parte Nishimoto et al 10/825,178 TIMM 103(a) McDermott, Will & Emery EXAMINER
DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3742 Ex Parte Saha 11/219,616 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PATEL, VINOD D
2441 Ex Parte Thomas 10/192,631 HOFF 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
2862 PHASE ONE A/S Requestor v. HASSELBLAD A/S Patent Owner, Appellant
95/000452 7,500,796 EASTHOM 103(a) Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik Third Party Requester: Susan Morse Lee & Morse, PC EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER FENWICK, WARREN K
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART & REVERSED IN PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
1762 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,390 6,709,694 DELMENDO 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB
AFFIRMED
1713 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/495,726 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AHMED, SHAMIM
2437 Ex Parte Cheng 10/346,678 HAHN 102(b) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TESLOVICH, TAMARA
2448 Ex Parte Collins et al 09/561,043 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
1726 Ex Parte Inatomi et al 10/814,342 GUEST 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE
1772 Ex Parte Pace et al 10/930,100 PAK 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M
1652 Ex Parte Petrescu et al 10/959,600 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SAIDHA, TEKCHAND
2111 Ex Parte Whitaker 10/432,309 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
1643 Ex Parte Allison et al 10/854,000 ADAMS 112(2)/101/112(1) ARNOLD & PORTER EXAMINER RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L
3777 Ex Parte Creighton et al 10/674,667 GREEN 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO
1741 Ex Parte Kokko 10/650,737 TIMM 103(a) Georgia-Pacific LLC EXAMINER CORDRAY, DENNIS R
1649 Ex Parte Morrison et al 10/640,914 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER WANG, CHANG YU
1741 Ex Parte Nishimoto et al 10/825,178 TIMM 103(a) McDermott, Will & Emery EXAMINER
DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3742 Ex Parte Saha 11/219,616 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PATEL, VINOD D
2441 Ex Parte Thomas 10/192,631 HOFF 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
2862 PHASE ONE A/S Requestor v. HASSELBLAD A/S Patent Owner, Appellant
95/000452 7,500,796 EASTHOM 103(a) Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik Third Party Requester: Susan Morse Lee & Morse, PC EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER FENWICK, WARREN K
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART & REVERSED IN PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
1762 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,390 6,709,694 DELMENDO 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB
AFFIRMED
1713 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/495,726 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AHMED, SHAMIM
2437 Ex Parte Cheng 10/346,678 HAHN 102(b) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TESLOVICH, TAMARA
2448 Ex Parte Collins et al 09/561,043 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
1726 Ex Parte Inatomi et al 10/814,342 GUEST 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE
1772 Ex Parte Pace et al 10/930,100 PAK 103(a) ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAM M
1652 Ex Parte Petrescu et al 10/959,600 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SAIDHA, TEKCHAND
2111 Ex Parte Whitaker 10/432,309 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
Friday, May 20, 2011
3M, hazani, garnero, van ornum, fallaux
REVERSED
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan 10/738,403 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LEE, JOHN W
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Polnyi et al 11/648,470 DROESCH 102(a) WEI TE CHUNG EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Saieg et al 10/916,127 SPAHN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D
If the words of limitation can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process used to obtain it, then the limitation is commonly interpreted in its structural sense. See, e.g., 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[E]ven words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process of manufacture are commonly and by default interpreted in their structural sense….”); Hazani v. U.S. Int’l. Trade Com’n., 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims to a plate having a “chemically engraved” surface are best characterized as pure product claims, since the “chemically engraved” limitation, read in context, describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 278-79 (CCPA 1969) (noting that past-tense verbs such as “ ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded,’ all … at one time or another have been separately held capable of construction as structural, rather than process, limitations.”).
Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Blackmon et al 11/116,626 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LOONAN, ERIC T
“Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1631 XDx, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of SOURCE PRECISION MEDICINE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,032 6,964,850 LEBOVITZ 103(a) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION C/O INTELLEVATE FOR PATENT OWNER: SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Hubbell et al 10/650,509 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER LANKFORD JR, LEON B
We are also not persuaded that common ownership is a requirement for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. As stated in MPEP § 804 ¶ I.A., “[d]ouble patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity, or by a different inventive entity having a common inventor, and/or by a common assignee/owner” (emphasis added).
...
This policy is supported by the decision in In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982), in which the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a patent with a common inventor, despite a lack of common ownership. The court reasoned there that the concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention outweighed the applicant‟s inability to proffer a terminal disclaimer tying together ownership of the application and conflicting patent. Id. at 944-48.
In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:
The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant‟s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities.
Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).
Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . 804, 804.02
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte D'URSO et al 11/463,940 TIMM 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE +QUIGG LLP/UTB EXAMINER EMPIE, NATHAN H
1726 Ex Parte Sherman et al 10/707,229 NAGUMO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) EDWARD YOO C/O BENNETT JONES LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, BEN
1783 Ex Parte Thrush 11/105,182 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT D. FISH FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J
2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/000,108 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER DOBSON, DANIEL G
2622 Ex Parte Altice 10/751,440 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Treyz Law Group EXAMINER CHEN, CHIA WEI A
2628 Ex Parte Chu et al 11/220,145 SAADAT 103(a) IBM (RPS-BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Brooker 10/969,357 WARREN 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER CONSILVIO, MARK J
NEW
REVERSED
2171 Ex Parte Balinsky 11/190,249 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D
1726 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/664,157 WARREN 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K
3718 Ex Parte Limback et al 10/443,612 O’NEILL 102(b) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT
2625 Ex Parte Sprague et al 10/308,550 BAUMEISTER 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K
AFFIRMED
1783 Ex Parte Hoolhorst et al 11/463,927 GARRIS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SIMONE, CATHERINE A
2454 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/425,408 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, CHIRAG R
3763 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/898,334 SCHEINER 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A
REHEARING
1762 Ex Parte Bacher et al 10/618,936 PAK 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)