lantech, robertson, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Weber 10/928,999 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Lee 11/025,123 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C. EXAMINER RAYMOND, BRITTANY L

1742 Ex Parte Funaoka et al 10/973,392 WARREN 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1767 Ex Parte Herbiet et al 11/573,581 SCHEINER 103(a) ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11/223,898 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

When a claim requires two separate elements, mapping one disclosed element to both recited elements is improper. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
2187 Ex Parte Kreuchauf et al 10/911,319 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Larson 10/449,025 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11/337,783 SAADAT 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER HUR, JUNG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,124 HOFF 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3677 Ex Parte Tolan et al 10/688,032 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

3679 Ex Parte Maciag 10/839,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Zwilling et al 10/833,541 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LY, ANH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Burak et al 10/400,239 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3736 Ex Parte Ehrenberger et al 11/002,955 BAHR 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

These vague statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, 2011 WL 2937946, at *7
(Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants have waived any argument for separate patentability of these dependent claims. See id.

3753 Ex Parte Schafer et al 10/697,376 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6830358 et al FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC. and HOLIDAY CREATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. SEASONAL SPECIALTIES, LLC Requestor 95/000,137 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a)/305 Liniak Berenato Longacre & White Third Party Requester: Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, PA Attn: Bradley J. Thorson, Esq. EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER HUSAR, STEPHEN F
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Birke et al 11/352,845 COLAIANNI 102(b) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1761 Ex Parte Morgan 11/506,064 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

1771 Ex Parte Koshima et al 10/515,822 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLOBOY, JAMES C

The Appellants do note that Tipton “fails to disclose or suggest the more specific succinimide compounds/compositions encompassed by claims 2, 3, 9 and 11.” App. Br. 7. However, this general assertion does not constitute a separate argument under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011)

1781 Ex Parte Skjervold et al 10/276,065 PAK 103(a)/112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

1792 Ex Parte Nihei et al 11/063,572 PAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,470 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Sablak et al 10/306,509 KRIVAK 103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Furry 11/298,862 KOHUT 112(1)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Stumvoll et al 10/027,625 GRIMES 103 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN