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
No comments :
Post a Comment