fisher, mostafazadeh

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Buckhaults et al 10/487,934 WALSH 101/112(1)/112(2) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

“It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Gray et al 10/903,585 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER WANG, LIANG CHE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

The most recent version of the MPEP now has the following sentence prior to the portion cited by the Examiner.

A statement of "failure to include a claim directed to" and then presenting a newly added claim, would not be considered a sufficient "error" statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.

MPEP 1414, II, C. Thus, this portion of the MPEP puts the phrasing regarding hypothetical new claim 10, supra, in context as merely requiring that the Applicants do more than just recite the added claim numbers and contents without regard to the existing claims. Clearly the Appellants’ declaration has pointed out what the original claims lacked and the newly [added] claims have. ...

We are at a loss to see how the Examiner arrived at this finding as to an exception to the case where claiming entirely new inventions does not involve recapture. ... We find no authority in the statutes, case law, or even the MPEP for the Examiner’s finding. Instead, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that no recapture exists in such circumstance.

The Board’s reliance on this portion of the MPEP is misplaced. This portion of the MPEP deals with claims in which there is no need to apply the recapture rule in the first place. The recapture rule is triggered only where the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims because the surrendered subject matter has been re-claimed in whole or substantial part … In contrast, this portion of the MPEP addresses reissue claims directed at “additional inventions/embodiments /species not originally claimed.” Because the subject matter of these claims was “not originally claimed,” it is wholly unrelated to the subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution and the recapture rule is not even triggered. In re Mostafazadeh --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1642830, Slip Opinion 2010-1260 (Fed Cir 5/3/2011).

3687 Ex Parte Gerzymisch et al 11/541,433 KIM 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER AN, IG TAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Mathews 10/359,878 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Wilson Ham & Holman EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Dugal et al 11/801,719 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CUTLIFF, YATE KAI RENE

1631 Ex Parte Ledley 10/200,978 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1655 Ex Parte Joseph et al 12/136,341 GRIMES 102(b) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Thiebes et al 10/847,529 GARRIS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Surles 10/157,126 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER ZURITA, JAMES H

3682 Ex Parte Hammond et al 11/691,458 KIM 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wangler et al 10/961,248 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) John C. McMahon EXAMINER LANDRUM, EDWARD F

3773 Ex Parte de la Torre et al 11/203,267 SAINDON 103(a) THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER MASHACK, MARK F

3781 Ex Parte Gilliam et al 11/103,331 SAINDON 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

NEW

REVERSED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

3727 Ex Parte Prell et al 11/492,326 BROWN 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

2625 Ex Parte Pruden et al 10/455,097 WINSOR 103(a) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP EXAMINER VO, QUANG N

3624 Ex Parte Sikes 11/952,490 KIM 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER JARRETT, SCOTT L

1618 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/431,353 GRIMES 103(a) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3689 Ex Parte Baggett 09/877,159 FETTING FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

1733 Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/671,851 GARRIS 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/002,546 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

AFFIRMED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/903,457 FETTING 251/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

2441 Ex Parte Kridner 10/306,493 HUGHES 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

2121 Ex Parte Selim et al 11/790,354 POTHIER 112(2)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R

2882 Ex Parte Sukovic et al 10/914,610 BAUMEISTER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CORBETT, JOHN M